Joshe

It’s called selling out, which is profitable.

Tens of thousands more influencers will follow suit. We’re entering the largest mass delusion of our time, and even spineless fools who voted Kamala will cave to it. It’s a whole new era.

All of this “let’s reflect on what happened” is either idiocy or posturing. Anyone with half a brain knows what happened. Unwitting voters were fed propaganda and they ate it up. I see a lot of politicians and mainstream media staying as far away from the truth as possible, and for very obvious reasons. If a politician went on CNN and said the voters were unwitting victims of propaganda, their career might end. So of course they’re going to say things like “what did the we do wrong to lose like this? “. The only thing to figure out is how to combat deception and how to deal with unwitting voters falling victim to propaganda. Data scientist are currently analyzing this stuff and when the data comes out, it will confirm what I’m saying. Many independent media outlets are acknowledging it, and they can because they aren’t beholden to stakeholders like the mainstream. Even Bernie can’t say the truth of what happened.

100%. Now that being on the right is associated with masculinity, I wonder to what degree it will hamper maturation of men. If you're 18 and associate "leftist" values with weakness and if you have millions of others affirming it, I think that's going to prevent some men from maturing who otherwise would have. Back when I was coming up, we had gangsters, bad boys, etc, but we knew it wasn't really accepted in society and I think because society didn't really allow it, that helped us grow out of it faster. If society is accepting of this toxicity, we might see this generation mature much slower than previous ones.

It's possible to fake like you care about people, as evidenced by Trump. That's the game we're in, which gives you thrills when considering ways the right can manipulate people but triggers your morals when you think of the left doing it. Replace "young white men" with, "the idea that young white men". You might say that I'm engaging in toxic masculinity rather than frustration. What I'm really expressing is my disdain for toxic ideas, hypocrisy, and weakness, which is the same weakness the right likes to make fun of the left for. Little snowflakes who melt with the slightest bit of emotional discomfort. That AI needs an epistemic upgrade. A better answer would have been something like: Based on such scant data, we can't be sure, but if we had to make a judgement based only on this, it's a reasonable assumption, although not definitive. If you want to know the truth, you could have just asked me 😆 I'm a middle-class, middle-aged, straight, single white male. I don't watch MSNBC. I've never been to a political protest or defended any minority group in my life. I've only ever had sex with women. My view of young white men is about the same as my view of young black men. Which is they're both just humans. I'm mocking the ideas being discussed, not the people holding the ideas. It seems this is rare. I'm not the type to attack people but ideas are fair game in my book. I recognize the plight of the human condition and I don't blame people for anything. I don't hate them for their ideas and I don't hate any group. Not even suicide bombers. But I will brutally mock their ideas, and TBH, I don't care to tiptoe around it. If I have a horrible idea, I don't mind if it's attacked. In fact, I wish it would be. Maybe I'm just oldschool or something, but I don't think young men should hear the message that there's something wrong with them and they've been abandoned by society. Even worse, to blame it on a fucking political party is STUPID! IF you hold that idea, I'm calling the idea stupid. Not you! This idea is not only fallacious, it's toxic. It's not good for anyone except the people who don't give two shits about them, profiting off it financially and politically. The hypocrisy of this idea is off the charts. And here's AI's summary of this message. It almost got it right.

The best solution you could hope for without embracing toxic masculinity is to meet them halfway. One such example is Dave Bautista's video attacking Trump. The problem is, at some point, the big man talk has to stop and when it does, they'll lose interest and go to the side that feeds it 24/7. I don't see how you can win them over when the right fully embraces what they want to express. You'd have to become them to have a chance at winning them over. Dana White was a main speaker at Trump's victory party for God's sake. They're gone. Yeah, I know.

It's pathetic that young white men now want politicians to give them the same level of representation and attention as disadvantaged groups have received. Should political parties be catering to the emotional needs and lifestyle preferences of healthy young white men whose biggest hardship is not getting pussy? Maybe we need some federally-funded brothels for these men who feel left behind. I'd be willing to pay a .25% brothel tax for them if they'd just shut the fuck up. What we need is a party who can figure out how to exterminate this neediness so we can get down to real business. And that goes for both sides. Maybe that's the way forward. What if the Dems came out and said "Look, we've made mistakes but we're changing how we operate. From now on, we're not going to show preferential treatment towards any group because it makes other groups jealous and causes too much conflict. We're sorry and we'll still look out for people but we're not doing identity politics anymore. It will be boring but that's how it should be." In my dreams.

I don't agree with OP's position but they have a good point about not calling them out. It's not just Trumpists in their camp now. We could wind up in a situation where 70% of the US population is defending the Trump admin the way white evangelicals and racist nutjobs have been for the past 8 years. The movement has many new members and now with the Rogan endorsement, many other influencers will follow suit, which means their numbers will continue to grow. If we call it out, it'll only entrench their new members, just like the first time around. If they didn't pickup so many new members, I'd probably still advocate for calling them out, but it seems like a horrible idea now. We should just keep quiet and hope the new members see for themselves, IMO.

This is very true. Look at where all previous efforts got us. They failed spectacularly. Denouncing Trumpism should stop. At this point, silence is the best teacher because it provides them opportunity for recognition. They'll have a hard time recognizing anything if we're filling up their psychic space with what they perceive as attacks. It just makes them double down. We all know at this point who and what he is. There should be no more trying to convince people. Just to clarify though, I'm not saying it should be ignored and I don't think discussions should stop, but we shouldn't be trying to convince them because it just makes them stronger.

You mistake conceptualizing and hashing things out as not accepting the thing. Why? I fully accept what happened and am not in emotional upheaval whatsoever. I can talk about "negative" things without coming from a negative place or becoming negative myself. You assume others can't because that's not how you operate. How do you think a stage yellow person would discuss Trumpism? What would it look like to you? If a stage yellow person has concluded that Trump is a full on con artist and his supporters are fools, does that make them not yellow? Also, do stage yellow people ever express emotions? Do they experience frustration? If they do, are they supposed to go to their cushion and calm themselves? Do you think all anti-Trump talk is stage green. Stage yellow can see Trump clearly and since they care about the world, if they think Trumpism is a huge threat to it, don't be surprised when intelligent people have conversations about it. Stage yellow wouldn't be "worried". At least, I'm not worried. I harp on my family about their diets, not because I'm worried about them dying, but because I care about them and don't want them to suffer. They often tell me I worry too much, but they mistake looking ahead to prevent catastrophe for worrying. It's not being afraid or worrying that catastrophe will come, it's simply being proactive in avoiding it. I can easily see how people conclude that people like myself or Sam Harris or Leo have "TDS". It has to do with being able to see things clearly AND caring about bad things not happening. It is not about sitting around in fear of those bad things. It's more to do with the frustration of people playing with fire and ignoring reality, and the negativity comes from the frustration of trying to get them to see it. It's not worry or fear. Although, that is probably the case for stage green.

For his supporters who aren't Christians or full on cultists and low IQ, they can't admit Trump's devilry in it's entirety because he's an expression of something they like. Whether it's racism, bullying and name calling, or attacking people and things they despise, which gives them a thrill. Essentially, they unconsciously choose cheap thrills over the truth and they can't see it because that's how bias works. They choose appearance over essence for a reason. It's more they don't want to see it rather than they can't see it. It's possibly the largest delusion of our time. I've found no better explanation of the phenomenon than this, but this doesn't include the full on retards/cultists.

@Hardkill You can't take it back by force. You would have to fight fire with fire and use covert influence. One thing I realized is that everyone should really never argue against Trumpism, ever. We should all keep our mouths shut. They will sow discontent amongst themselves if they don't have us distracting them. That's probably the best thing the anti-Trump camp can do because here's the thing: most of their new members know what they did is bad and they're hoping it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass. When it does, remain silent. Silence is the best teacher. Let's not do what we did from 2016-2020. It didn't work then and it won't work now. I for one will not be shining the light on his devilry on my social media anymore. The only reason I even have social media was for that purpose, but no more. We'll all need to be much more calibrated in our attacks and we can't attack every instance of fuckery and when we do attack, it needs to be subtle. There's more of them than there are of you, so if you want to sabotage the movement, you should do it as discreetly as possible. Good luck and Godspeed. 😂

You crack me up man! 😂 Have you ever practiced "letting go"? https://www.audible.com/pd/Letting-Go-Audiobook/B00ZJFQN9I Notice you've always been alright. What will happen will happen and there'll you'll be, noticing it happen. It will be fine. Nothing can get done with a hot head. Yes, it sucks that this is the state of things, but you can't change it, so you have to just let it go. Half of the country is really happy. That alone is a positive thing if you think about it. Let them have their win. Also, they will fuck shit up and you can watch as a detached observer knowing that you had no part of it. Aspects of it will surely be entertaining. I'm no longer on edge because what's done is done. I'm done warning and convincing people because at the point, everyone knows what Trump is and they chose him anyway. There is really nothing left to say to them and no need to convince anyone because they already know. Now that there's nothing left to do, all we can do is strap in for the ride and accept it. Same as all throughout history, uprisings occur when the elites step too far out of bounds. They will do damage but they can't go too far.

The answer depends on how you prefer to look at it and how terms are defined. To me, murder is something like the extermination of an operational consciousness. Embryos don't have consciousness, therefor, they can't be murdered. The issue is that people project humanness onto a mass of cells. If someone is born in a vegetative state and kept alive for 20 years, is pulling the plug murder? Is shooting them in the head murder? I would say no because there is no consciousness and there never will be. You aren't taking anything away from them because there's no one there. It might seem and feel like murder, but it's not. If embryos are sacred and should be protected, couldn't someone use this logic to say sperm cells are the seeds of life and are even more sacred than embryos? I was watching mine under a microscope the other day. Poor little things. I feel so bad now.

God created it. 😂 As of now, I don't see a path forward for the Dems. They'll have to completely rebrand themselves and install all new figureheads. Everyone at the top, except a few must go. The rightward shift is pronounced and the trend will continue. The reason why is because it's a new movement. It's no longer Trumpism. If Trump didn't bring in his team of super-heroes, he probably would have lost this election. Many independents who voted R who previously didn't consider themselves political, have found a nice cozy political home that they'd like to identify with. Their numbers will grow. You can't stop Rogan and the soon-to-be trillionaire. Look, the worst that can happen is we all die. Keep in mind, the elites needs us to give them attention and buy their stuff, so they ain't going to exterminate you. lol. I'd say the biggest concern is winding up in WW3.

It's not my profession. I'm a freelance frontend guy. lol. I've just always had a natural curiosity for it, so I have thousands of hours contemplating it. I've always been very aware of my own psychology, and seeing what goes on there is very much what goes on in everyone else. We're all more alike than not, at least when it comes to our drivers and emotions. I non-stop ask "why did that person do that" or "what makes them do that" and then hypothesize. I enjoyed the puzzles but most are solved now. Over time, you get better and better at it until eventually, you can size most people up really quickly with little info and the more info that comes in, the more refined the read. I'm more confident in my reads on individuals now because they're almost always right. Sounds arrogant but it's true. It really became obvious when I got into live poker several years back and I saw in real time how accurate they were. It was thrilling as hell but also very eerie. I really shouldn't call them "my reads", because I don't do anything for them. My mind serves up patterns on a silver platter for my prefrontal cortex to process with logic. lol. But yeah, I'm not a psychologist. 😂

I know more than most but I'm not well-educated on politics or history. My wheelhouse is human nature and psychology, reading reality, and putting 2 and 2 together. I mostly operate on intuition and logic, and instead of diving deep into every topic that I come across, I collect the fundamentals and infer from there and acquire knowledge as needed. So, I can't provide any historical or scientific data to answer your question but it seems like common sense to me that specific ideas attract specific types of people. Men like watching football. Why? Because it allows them to engage with and play out their masculine ideals. Women like playing with babies? Why? Same logic. From this, it seems easy to infer what's going on here. The right's idea of a man is one who shoots guns, watches football, gets pussy, is respected by others because they're assertive or dominant, etc, not someone who sits around dealing in feminine things. The left's idea of a man includes someone who isn't afraid of the vulnerability that comes with the feminine and who sees women as equals and deserving of as much freedom as men have and not just something for men to own. The right isn't interested in femininity because they think it makes them look weak and because it gets in the way of them expressing what they want to express, which is not the feminine. Essentially, they're more selfish and cowardly. Something like that. So yeah, the party that says "hey, women are people too" will attract people more morally developed than the party who thinks "women are here to serve men". Depending on your definition of masculinity, it can easily seem like the right is more masculine due to appearances but if you take a deeper look into what motivates humans, it seems clear to me what's going on. And of course, underdeveloped people often need more self-esteem and one way they get that is by calling others weak. All of this is spontaneous sensemaking off the top of my head as I'm writing it. I'm no expert on the subject but I think this seems largely accurate, but obviously incomplete and imprecise. I'm not sure how well it answers your question though.

The right's idea of a man looks a lot like a sadistic teenager's wet dream of dominating others and getting all the pussy.

Ok, you’re right. Low consciousness has nothing to do with Trumpism or the people who voted for him. I’m not demeaning. I’m calling reality as it is. I’m able to do that because I’m not operating on spiritual dogma that makes me run from truths that threaten my worldview. Is it possible for someone to make my claim from a place where no ego is involved? If you concede that it is, why do you assume I’m getting ego juice from it? I’m above ego juice at this point. if I could design reality, I’d make everyone better than myself so I could learn from them. I wouldn’t make myself better than everyone else so I could bask in my own glory. It’s utterly stupid and there’s nothing to gain. This is what I meant by projection. Why would you project onto me your on egoic tendencies? The answer is “to project”. Trust me, I take no pleasure in demeaning foolishness. I wish I lived in a world where it didn’t have to be called out, but that’s not our reality.

@Wizardking The divide essentially comes down to this: You have left wing and right wing and both sides are engaged in a culture war. Enter Trump, a con artist. The problem is, many people are biased towards the mouthpiece speaking on behalf of their culture war, so this makes them sweep his con artistry under the rug. It's self-deception. They can't see it because they don't want to see it. Also, most of the left is thoroughly propagandized, just like much of the right. So even the people on the left calling Trump an evil con artist are often thoroughly self-deceived as well. But... that doesn't mean they're wrong about who and what Trump is. I suspect this is what is confusing to you about it. So know this: You can know the truth of what Trump is without joining either side. It is either true that he's a devilish con artist or it's not. Now, how can you tell for yourself if the claim is true? For starters, don't listen to the left or the right, especially people who have skin in the culture war game. Next, how good can you read people? Because if you go research Trump, if you can read people accurately, you should be able to pick up on at least some subtle clues that lend credence to the claim. If you can read people well enough, you can see it for yourself and you will need no one to tell you what's what. If you can see and if you look enough, the evidence starts to pile up fast, and when viewed all together, it paints a picture of a total con artist and it will be incredibly obvious. Then you'll know what all the fuss is about. If you can't read people, then I'm not sure what to tell you because it's just something I've always been able to do, so I don't know how you'd go about learning how to do that. I think a lot of it is years of observation and honing intuition, as well as knowing the devil in yourself. Remember, it's either true or not. Many intelligent and wise people tell you it's true. That should be a very good indicator that it could be true and if you want to know what is true, try to see what they are saying, but don't take their word for it. Try to see it for yourself. I hope you can.

Project some more. I didn't come out on top. The truth comes out on top. What is true cannot be diminished, so if you align yourself with what is true, you can be on top too, since that's what you seem to be concerned with. You people seem to have a hard time accepting the truth of humanity's current level of conscious development. Look, I don't like it either, but it is what it is. I wish it were different. Don't project your fucking inferiority/superiority complexes onto me.

The Christian element played a large role, but it's not the root. The root is the American people can't discern truth from falsehood, which is why many of them are Christians. Propaganda won this election. If there was zero propaganda/fear mongering, Trump would have lost because, without lies, he would have had nothing to say.

I don't think his endorsement is just blind audience capture. I think he's being paid handsomely from Musk. That's just my speculation but my read has been right so far about a lot of this stuff. I called it 4 years ago that Musk and Tucker Carlson would either position themselves very high up in politics or try to become president. During covid, I noticed a flood of media talking about what a genius Elon musk was. It was all over the place. Then, right in the middle of that media blitz, Rogan brings on Dave Chappelle and tells him Elon is the most interesting person he's ever met and then they spend 5 minutes selling the shit out of the idea that Elon is not only a modern-day Einstein, but one of the coolest people you could hang out with... just one of the guys. The way they delivered the message caught my eye. I used to think Rogan was respectable and had integrity, but I started to doubt this when his video thumbnails and titles were obviously targeting MAGA. I was suspicious for a few years, but now I'm convinced he's not as integrous as he seems. Like Lex Fridman, he seems like an honest actor, but I think they've been corrupted and I think they know it. Also, I think Elon bought Twitter largely to help Trump get elected. Elon and his rich buddies have been plotting this for a while and Rogan was a willing participant. Joe's interview with Trump was timed perfectly. I asked ChatGPT: "If a presidential candidate had the opportunity to conduct an interview with the world’s leading influencer, what would be the ideal date to schedule it for maximum public impact?" Answer: Oct 25th. (Same date as the Rogan-Trump interview) Reasoning: October 25th is optimal because it’s close enough to Election Day (November 5th) to stay fresh in voters’ minds but still allows time for the interview to circulate widely across media platforms, build momentum, and influence early voters. This date avoids the clutter of last-minute campaign messages while still maximizing visibility and impact in the critical final stretch. I can't prove this, but it makes sense because these people have very clear pathways to immense power, and they're knowingly getting sucked into the vortex, and they like it.

Yeah, IDK. It sounds like you're saying what appears to be green is just orange masquerading as more developed? I suppose that could be the case for many. The reason I never went very deep into SD is because I can't reconcile it with my direct experience. If I exhibit mostly yellow tendencies and never went through what is typically described as stage green, how did I get to yellow? I went through a drastic moral growth spurt, but IDK if you call that green. Maybe introverts handle green differently?

Elon: I think this is the last election, if Trump doesn't win, this is the last election. Rogan: I think you're right. I think you're right. Rogan is an absolute fucking sellout. I think he and Elon have been colluding this entire time to get Trump elected. It's why Rogan put out a clip a 1-2 years back saying that he thinks Elon is the smartest person alive and he's been slobbing his knob since. Posting things like "The great and powerful Elon Musk. If it weren't for him, we'd be fucked." They've been working on this shit for a while. Rogan intentionally held off on doing the Trump interview just before the election. Rogan has been bought. It'll be interesting to see if this hurts Rogan in the long run.