The problem is that whatever moral system you construct, you will not be able to live by it. Your very survival will contradict it. You will be harming things just by virtue of being alive. This then leads so all sorts of ridiculous moral mental gymnatics, excuses, and rationalizations which warp your mind.
Being moral and being alive is not really compatible.

Just as one example, studies show that chronic weed use increases risk for various diseases, memory problems, etc.
Psychedelics put a lot of stress on your brain and nervous system.
It is impossible to give some simplistic rule for how much is too much. It will vary based on your unique genetics and no one knows for sure.
But if you think your trips don't have a physical cost on your body, you are a fool.

The key thing they seem to be missing is the realization that morality is a human construct.
That doesn't mean moral issues shouldn't be considered, but the foundation must be to see that morality is an invention, and moralizing to others is a kind of trap.
And then, just at the level of PR and optics, being militant about veganism just turns people off and has a counter-productive effect. Since most people are eating as part of a deep culture which cannot be changed overnight. People need to undergo years of moral development first, and most people are barely surviving.

Bill Burr has said something like "some people think you're dumb just because you don't share the same interests as them". The concept of conflating knowledge with intelligence has gotten really clear for me the last year or so.

There have been many times where someone else didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, and it somehow contributed to them thinking I'm smart. Conversely, I tend to feel the same way when I don't understand somebody else. I think there is a mental heuristic that tells you "if you don't understand something, it must be due to your lack of innate abilities", while in reality, it's probably much more about your lack of experience in a certain area; contextual factors. It has really opened my mind about how I view "smart people" and how much of it probably boils down to experience.

You can also observe it on a micro level in single conversations. For example, if you're talking to a group of people and you zone out for a few seconds, you might find yourself not understanding what is being said, and you might feel quite dumb for the rest of the conversation. But the moment you regain immersion in the conversation, you understand it and you no longer feel like a dunce. In this case, the knowledge about that specific conversation was lacking.

As for more general knowledge, I have one particular example that sticks out. So I'm currently taking a statistics class, and I attend as many lectures as I can. I'm in a group project with five other people, and it's generally just me and another person who attends the lectures needed to understand the assignments. Not surprisingly, the other people are seemingly amazed that we're able to understand the assignments, thinking we're so much smarter than them and that this is why we're carrying the group. But in reality, the true difference is that we went to the lectures and they didn't.

Now, you can argue that we're the one attending the lectures because we have the innate abilities to understand what is being taught in the first place while the others don't. While this could be true, it could also be that they never attended many lectures and therefore never built up the momentum or continuous progression in knowledge. They do admit that attending the lectures helps them understand it at least a little better. And it's not like me and the other person understand everything 100% either. When we're working in the group, we're constantly learning new things, making mistakes, getting stuck, having insights, making adjustments. We feel stupid all the time, but we still work through it.

Truly, if you want to point to an innate factor that is maybe significantly different between us, it's conscientiousness, especially the industriousness part (how much work you're willing to put in), which ties into how many lectures you're willing to attend. But even that can be learned to a large extent. I had to consciously learn how to be this conscientious, or at least how to manifest it in my actions to this extent. Regardless, at least in this situation, it suggests that the main deciding factor is how much work you're willing to put in and the experience you gain from that, rather than innate abilities.

And according to this mathematician, if you're behind when comparing yourself to another person in your class, it only takes two weeks to catch up. How? Well, you're in the same class, and the class requires a certain level of skill to get into (which is specially true for graduate level classes). You've also all been in the class for a relatively short time. There are probably many other factors as well, but you might start to see that the main factor is how much work you're putting in (and how it could easily be just two weeks). So there is hope for my classmates and anybody else who might be struggling in a class.
 
 
This is somewhat related to how sophistry works. When you want to determine if somebody is being coherent but you don't understand them, you go by their level of conviction and other superficial markers like fluency and verbal richness. It's like a back-up plan for when you don't understand someone but you need to know if they can be trusted or not, which is actually very often the case. It's also often required for learning new things. You need to trust in what you're learning before you actually learn it, and if you stop at the first sign of incoherence, you won't learn much of anything.

So ironically, you need to be somewhat complacent with sophistry in order to actually become knowledgeable and to be able to spot sophistry when it truly happens. Knowledge is a Catch-22. And also ironically, the people in my group who don't attend the lectures, need to become complacent with sophistry when it truly matters (during the lectures), and not just when they're in the group listening to those who have attended the lectures. They very often think we're being coherent when we aren't, so in those moments, we're being sophists waiting to be called out.

@ivarmaya Read Ken Wilber's book: The Religion Of Tomorrow, where he lists many of these advanced spiritual traps.

Demonizing pedophilia is wrong, but at the same time we cannot allow adults to have sex with children where the age gap is like 10+ years, as that is very harmful to the children and their inexperience will absolutely get exploited.
That adults can exploit children is not a construct. The construct is that non-mainstream sexual tendencies are wrong or evil in some moral sense.

IQ is a poor measurent of intelligence.
Intelligence has to be redefined so that it's also connected to level of consciousness and level of development. And even moral development should be a factor.
Boiling intelligence down to one's ability to do complex physics calcuations is, ironically, not very intelligent.

Mostly.
Luxury items are mostly scamming your money to sell you a childish fantasy. Watches, clothes, and cars especially. And the more luxury and pricey they are, the more of a scam it is. It's a mind-scam. These brands fool you into thinking these things are important and valuable when they basically aren't.
A $20,000 Rolex is a mind-scam.
Nobody needs these items, they don't even have good build quality, and they won't make you happy.

Of course DMT should be used with harmala extract.
But don't combine it with 5-MeOs.

I've used non-flouride charcoal toothpaste for like 10 years now and I haven't had problems with cavities. I also consume plenty of sugar.
But there is a genetic factor here. Some people have bad teeth genetics.
I would say, experiment with more kinds of toothpaste until you find something that suits you.
You can also go to the dentist and get your teeth sealed with a compound that prevents cavities from forming. Ask your dentist about it.

It's not that.
The best guy in game who I ever met was a natural. He didn't even know about pickup. But he's better than RSD pickup coaches.
I tried teaching him some game concepts, like state. He said, "What's state?" I explained it to him, and he said, "Oh! I'm in state as soon as I get in my car!" This guy was a natural salesman. He could sell condoms to a nun.
He told me he hated his mother and didn't trust any women because she was a selfish bitch.
It's not about parents. It's about extroversion genetics.
If you look carefully, all the best pickup coaches are natural extroverts. That's the secret to game which they don't tell you. The introverts will never have as good game, no matter how much they practice. The more introverted you are the harder game will be for you. Your brain is just not wired for it. However, your brain is wired for other better things like contemplation.
Owen modeled his game after naturals. Then he sold everything he learned from naturals to chumps through RSD. I met the natural Owen modeled his game from. This is why Owen's game is not the best. His magic was not in game, it was in selling you desperate chumps. Owen is a marketing genius, not a game genius. With that said, I'm not saying his game is shit. So don't misunderstand me.
Now you understand the whole secret to RSD. Owen used his marketing genius to selling natural game to millions of desperate introverted guys. Not because he was great at game, but because he was great at marketing.
Ta-daaaa!

Can and could, but not must, and not even a majority I would guess.
It feels like you want to put pickup guys into this shame box which you have constructed in your own mind. Of course some of them fit in that box, but I would be careful about over-generalizing, especially since you don't have personal experience going through pickup, so you're sorta speculating about what it's like to be a man and why men act as they do.
It would be sorta like if I said that women overeat because they feel hidden shame. Or maybe some women just like to eat junk.

@Dodo It's important to keep the following context in mind:
Many men are natural pussyhunters, regardless of pickup. Pickup just formalized the activity and gave it a name. But pussyhunting is a natural aspect of masculinity regardless of you views of it.
It does not take a lot of brains to be interested in pussyhunting.

Survival. The job of the military is to serve its tribe, not international law.
The world is not developed far enough for international law to trump national law.

All of morality just boils down to minimizing the suffering your selfishness causes others.

Part of the challenge here in how you define "core".
Sorta by definition, if you are able to change some part of yourself then it wasn't core to you. Core would be the stuff that refuses to change even after much effort.
Obviously there are part of yourself and your life which you can change. But human minds are not infinitely flexible. There is a core to your personality which ties in with your brain chemistry, genetics, childhood conditioning, baseline state of consciousness, physical health, and so on.
In a certain sense you must learn to live with yourself.
What makes it tricky is that you don't always know what is core to you and what is not, what you can change and what you cannot. So you have to be careful not to create limiting beliefs. But you also have to be careful not to brainwash yourself with fantasies.
In the end you're just gonna have to put in a lot of effort and see what sticks and what doesn't. Some change will come naturally and some change will be like iceskating uphill.

Hitler was not conservative. You probably consumed propaganda. Just hear original Hitler speeches like this one
 
Hitler said you should have respect of the past but you should not identify with it (big difference !!). You should respect their achievements but that should not mean that what they did is still good.
Hitler said, It is good to build up from ancestors achievements but then put your own will into it. So just copy what the ancestors did is utterly stupid.
A conservative would never said that.
Hitler: Nationalsocialism is based on biological insights and not on ancient tradition.
 
 
 
 
 
 

The manipulation of people to maximize sexual opportunity is low consciousness.
Just in general, sex and everything revolving around sex is low consciousness. The reason that is, is because the only reason you care about sex at all is because it is mechanically coded in your animal nature. And as you pursue that sex you lose consciousness to attain it. You lie. You manipulate. You cheat. You hurt others. All for a few minutes of pleasure and excitement.
Have sex if you wish. Just notice what you're doing to get it.
But also, if you repress, deny, or neglect your sex drive, that could be even worse.

Human survival has always been more about social skill than physical size.
Which is why women are most attracted to leadership, status, charisma, and social intelligence.
Women aren't stupid. They like exactly what helps their children survive.
Women don't need your muscles, they need your leadership and social connections.

I've had kundalini awakenings before I knew what they were. I think there is a lot of dramatization with the whole thing.
It's wild but you'll be okay in the end. Kundalini is the embodied consciousness of physicality, ground up consciousness, instead of top down consciousness, it's the whole body awakening like hitting an asleep cobra with a stick.
If someone is worried of messing up the kundalini, buy a good rudraksha mala and wear it. That really helps a lot, from newbies to pros, Rudraksha helps everyone in this energetic process. I wear hundreds of Rudraksha seeds on me right now, it's one of my well kept secrets. Rudrakshas by themselves will handle and guide your kundalini better than other methodologies.
 

The whole mindset of rating people is wrong. It's going to prevent you from relating to them properly, consciously.
Even when you think stuff like, "OMG, that girl is a hottie!" That's already warping your ability to relate properly with girls. It's a selfish and immature approach.

Yes. Those feminine qualities create emotional stimulation.
The problem with being too masculine is that you become too logical and stoic, which is counterproductive to game.
It's sorta paradoxical. You have to learn to be masculine but also emotionally expressive and playful.
Gaming girls is akin to playing with children or dogs. You can't do it from a serious or logical place.

People will use life purpose to avoid doing a serious inquiry into consciousness.
(And I'm not saying Sadhguru did that. But I am saying Owen did that).
Obviously Owen is free to live out his life playing in Maya if he so wishes. I just hoped he was more intelligent than that.
Live your life however you want. But if you want serious consciousness then that requires deconstructing certain illusions. This doesn't mean life purpose is wrong, but you will want to become conscious of its true nature and how it is part of your survival game.
Most people are very deeply stuck playing in Maya. Like Elon Musk and all the other billionaires. And that's what Owen is chasing.
Sadhguru is doing something more advanced.

There is no algorithmic solution. There is no clear line. It's highly relative.
But in general you can make a distinction between being hijacked by fear vs being wisely cautious. There is a difference between dysfunctional paranoia vs wise caution. If you look both ways before crossing a busy highway, that's not fear, that's wise caution. If you are so terrified of traffic that you refuse to leave your house, that's dysfunctional paranoia. And if you decide to cross the highway without looking because you think traffic is an illusion, you're an idiot.

The difference is, fear is a charged emotion.
Caution is not emotional. It's more of a cool, rational understanding and premeditated avoidance.
If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, you could feel fear or you could not. But just because you feel no fear does not mean you must jump off. You could simply decide not to jump and you could take a step back to be sure a gust of wind doesn't blow you over. That's caution.