Leo Gura

I totally understand that. But the key to life is to never quit and keep your spirits high even after lots of failure. Well, that just means life is demanding more out of you, a better, stronger you. But don't overlook how working on this tough problem will grow you and get you deepen your relationship to life. Solving tough problems has a way of forcing you to really appreciate the time you have left. I've experienced that with my health problems. I would estimate I lost half of productivity and creative potential in life. And I've had to make peace with that. You just gotta be ready for life to throw you very challenging problems and improvise your life plans. Life is not some simple kid's game. This is as serious as it gets. It's an acquired taste. Life can get very brutal. People get cancer, lose loved ones in car accidents, lose arms and legs. You gotta be ready to take on challenges like that. Watch my blog videos on Requisite Variety and my health struggles. That will be most relevant for you.

Well, Facebook's problems have been well-documented and he's certainly responsible for many of them. Facebook is also a trainwreck of sorts. But at least they are profitable as a business. The biggest difference is that Zuck is not out there promising people free speech absolutism. If Zuck took that stance, he would rightly be ridiculed for being naive and irresponsible. But Zuck understands moderation issue much better than Musk because he's had to deal with that crap for 15 years. Musk is like a child who just stumbled into it. That's really the issue. It's like if I bought a rocket company and started issuing orders about how to build rockets but had zero rocketry experience. I would make a lot of bad decisions. The difference is that everyone knows that building good rockets is hard. But Musk does not appreciate that building good social platforms is even harder than building a rocket. Engineering is easy compared to solving socio-political issues. Which is exactly why this tech-bro attitude is popular in Silicon Valley. Tech problems are relatively easy to solve because they are well-defined and don't hinge on changing the minds of millions of people. You cannot solve the problem of apes playing with dynamite by inventing even stronger dynamite for them to play with.

Well, that is how EVERY social problem is ultimately solved. It's merely a question of whether you will live long enough to see it.

How can God ordain the universal realization of God if the whole problem is that God is unaware that he is God? God is not some other thing. God is you. The reason God cannot wake you up is precisely because you are God! God cannot force anyone to wake up because to wake up one has to want to wake up. If God does not want to wake up, how can God wake up? If you decide to dream, that's God deciding to dream. And so God's will is done. And if you set your heart and mind to Awaken, so too God's will will be done. God's Will passes right through you! But you won't understand this until after Awakening. That's the whole problem. It's like you're trying lift up a carpet on which you are standing. And you can't understand why the carpet refuses to move. And so you ask, "Why doesn't God will this carpet to move?" You are in your own way.

What's hilarious is that JP's argument in the above clip is precisely Post-Modernism. But he applies Post-Modernism with such gross double-standards, only when it suits him. No pre-modern nor modern religious intellectual would argue -- when asked if he believes in God -- that he cannot answer the question because we don't know what "you" is, what "belief" is, what "God" is, and what "is" is. The line of logic laid out by JP in the above clip is exactly how Derrida would answer a question. Post-Modernism is about deconstructing the question and the questioner until you can't even do philosophy any more. Which is just of course his own confusion projected out at the world.

That's the only sure thing.

Twitter is not a tech company. Twitter is a content moderation company. This is key to realize. You cannot tech-bro your way out of a social governance problem. Twitter does not have a tech problem, they have a social governance problem. There is no software you can write which will make your party appealing to people. Managing a social space requires social intelligence and savvy, not more technology. If you want to have a popular mass platform with happy advertisers, you gotta make a place where everyone feels safe. Not a jungle free-for-all.

It's looking like a repeat of 2016. Trump will just bulldoze his way through the primaries and force the reluctant leadership to back him because their only other option would be backing Biden. The difference is though, Trump has already alienated all the swing voters and he will never get them back. The only other chance I see Republicans having is if somehow De Santis manages to outplay Trump. I find that highly unlikely. He probably won't even try because he'd have a lot of risk and little chance of victory. It would be quite foolish for De Santis to wage a full-out war against Trump and his base. Which would be necessary to somehow defeat Trump cause Trump will sooner take the whole party down with him than lose to De Santis. Trump needs this primary way more than De Santis. This is basically Trump's last chance to win, cause he's getting too old, mean while De Santis can try running for another 20 years because he's so young. So if De Santis is wise he will just be patient and not wage any wars.

Not exclusively, but mostly.

Chronic health problem can definitely be demoralizing like that. You gotta muster hope and keep troubleshooting solutions to your health issues. You can re-energize your dreams and goals once your health problems improve, so don't worry about losing them. But if your health is really bad, yeah, it's gonna be hard to have big dreams because you don't have the energy to work on them. I've definitely experienced this with my health problems.

The whole point is that a social media platform must moderate content far beyond what is merely illegal. In the same way that if you want to host a popular party, your party rules cannot simply be: anything legal goes. Your party must prohibit a bunch of stuff which is legal, but socially unacceptable, like bringing a dead skunk to the party. In real life you cannot bring a skunk to a party because people will see your face, remember who you are, and blacklist you forever. But online, since most people are anonymous and have multiple accounts, this doesn't work. If you let people bring skunks, they will keep doing it and ruin every online party you ever throw. Thus you must ban such assholes. Because if they did that the real-world, they would be banned for simple indecency. Musk's policy is effectively this: Let's allow everyone back to our party who has ever brought a skunk. Well, it's obvious that Musk doesn't understand how parties work.

It is not so easy to draw a line between transphobia vs people questioning / having philosophical disagreements on trans topics. Trans people have a tendency to consider any questioning or philosophical disagreements about gender issues to be transphobia, which is not the case. Then genuine transphobes exploit this loophole. So here we are. Here's my question to you: Do you consider Joe Rogan a transphobe?

You are the one who's inventing distinctions between God and machines. By your logic, AIs are stealing from noone but themselves. Maybe watch my Double Standards episode and my Understanding Bias episode. God vs machine is a duality. << there's your error

I think lots of people have been fooled by alt-media as it was a new thing. But now the excesses of alt-media are becoming well-known, so people will be less fooled by it in the future. In the end, having more voices is a good thing, things just need to settle down. This is all part of expanding democracy. Don't demonize alt-media, don't demonize mainstream media. There is good and bad to be found in both. They supplement each other.

See... now is where the right will have to contend with the monster they created. The right-wing elites would love to dump Trump, but they spent 6 years brainwashing their dumb base that Trump is their messiah. Now they reap what they have sown and lose in 2024. Their only chance of winning is if Trump steps aside. But he is too selfish to do that. And thus we have a perfect case study of how selfishness is self-defeating. This is why you don't support selfish assholes in the first place.

Very dangerous. Could easily kill you. Not worth the risk. Syrian rue is not for use with the 5-MeO class. It works beautifully with DMT and DPT though.

IQ is a bad concept. Stop using it. Start thinking in terms of pure Intelligence. Yes, it will increase your Intelligence, assuming you use them properly.

God realization is when you realize your girlfriend is a dream.

Exactly. So stop whining about your suffering.

By his own logic we don't know if Jordan Peterson is a man or a woman or a chipmunk. It's amazing how sloppily JP does his existential deconstructions -- only in directions which suit his conservative worldview. If we don't know what "climate" is, then how the hell do we know what a man is?

Please cut the BS. The simple fact is that people who watch lots of alt-media end up less informed and more deceived about reality than otherwise. So your claims of bias are spurious. Bias is precisely what makes alt-media so dangerous. The bias found in alt-media makes CNN look like angels.

This reactionary stance won't hold water. The job of any media should be help people stay informed and make sense of the world events. People who listen to alt-media often end up having a poorer sense of events than those who listen to mainstream media. Which means alt-media is doing a worse job than mainstream media. Many people who hate on mainstream media don't watch it at all, instead only consuming alt-media. Which makes them worse informed than those who only watch mainstream media. This whole demonization of mainstream media is really unintelligent and transparently self-serving for alt-media.

Definitely not. You have to be much more careful with subscribing to such simplistic stereotypes. This is just some narrative you invented based on cherrypicked media you've consumed.

Everything seems better in retrospect.

I think most people understand that absolute free speech is a dumb idea, and they don't expect it of their social platforms. Hardcore libertarians are a minority, which is why they never win any elections. It's an ideology which fails both in theory and in practice. Don't forget that the loudest voices on social media are often the most ignorant and do not represent the majority.