Danioover9000

Great video about mental health and the problems of the internet/online cultures. Boycott Streamers and stop viewing stream content, and stop overconsuming social media sites passively, as it leads to various mental health problems like increases in narcissism, neuroticism, sociopathy/psychopathy like pathologies, false self images, inflation of self entitlements, increases in ADD/ADHD and mental unhealth. If you all will still view online/internet streamers, social media influencers, reduce.

@Lila9 'Israel is not an Apartheid state. It's different than South Africa. The situation is definitely unique but not Apartheid state.'. Well, human slavery was a business and the majority of society in all of history, not just Europeans and whites that enslave, but so do African kingdoms and tribes do practice slavery, as well as the Arab kingdoms then and still parts of the region to this day. So are you saying that Africa doesn't participate in enslaving Africans and selling them to the Arabians, because it's different than Europe, and Europeans and white people are the only ones to participate in the slavery business mostly? Do you understand that there are Israeli Zionists who want a 2 party ethnostate?

@AerisVahnEphelia Do you mean recognize instead of reckon? I partly agree, but in @Razard86's logical frame, everyone's a genius, including you and me, therefore we'd recognize a genius because it takes a genius to know a genius. However, what if you and I are not geniuses? What if his logic is false? What is the cost of overgeneralizing the word 'genius' and strip it of it's definition? What is it's use then to other people who recognize 'genius' but the word 'genius' is so over corrupt and polluted with other meanings that we loss the defined meanings? So, my argument and logical frame sides with careful definitions of terminologies in context, so we don't lose the meanings of the words we use. The main problem with trying to make a word self referential, and refuse to define it, for example what is a man, and the word 'man' mean, but we minus every reference, every feature of 'man', and we don't point to objects that are common patterns of 'man' and the other can just claim 'a man is a man onto itself'? We'd end up with infinite regress of that word, as it keeps self referencing itself, leading to infinite regress, which leads to meaninglessness of the term used. So what's the point of strictly defining terms? What's the point of mathematics and other S.T.E.M fields without strict definitions for their terminologies? So definitions impart usage and some usefulness of words communicated to others.

@Carl-Richard You can preach Daniel Schmachtenberger's points and proselytize Game B, tier 2 cognition, or Spiral Dynamics stage yellow/Turquois, but when the majority of people are still lower/middle class, struggling for material needs and security, last thing that'll help is fancy sophistry from James wheels, and other systemic thinkers. The arguments are not only not convincing/persuasive enough, like Lex Fridman and Curt Jaimungal, but it's far more difficult when practice/application of those theories happen. If Daniel's dream of peace Utopia happens, it happens when almost everyone is secure enough for game B, but until then we're stuck for 100-200 years of game A.

What a shocking lack of empathy:

Wow, zero empathy by the female reporter, just right after the Palestinian ambassador gives his story. She basically after he finishes his opening gave him a "Oh, sorry for your lose. BTW do you condemn HAMA?". Mr. Girl would have had a fit:

@Razard86 Let us start by defining genius: genius /ˈdʒiːnɪəs/ noun 1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. "she was a teacher of genius" Similar: brilliance, great intelligence, great intellect, great ability ,cleverness, brains, erudition, wisdom, sagacity, fine mind, wit, artistry, flair, creative power, precocity, precociousness, talent, gift, aptitude, facility, knack, technique, touch, bent, ability, expertise, capacity, power, faculty, endowment, strength, strong point, forte, dexterity, adroitness, skill, virtuosity. Opposite: stupidity 2. an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. "a mathematical genius" Similar: brilliant person, mental giant, mastermind, Einstein, intellectual, intellect, brain, highbrow, expert, master, artist, polymath, prodigy, gifted child, idiot savant, egghead, brains, bright spark, whizz, wizard, ninja, alpha geek, walking encyclopedia, brainbox, clever clogs, boffin, brainiac, rocket scientist, maven. Opposite: dunce adjective INFORMAL very clever or ingenious. "a genius idea" Now that we have a solid definition of Genius, and similarities and features of genius, we then can argue for or against genius and is or isn't genius. The reason why I offer the definitions of genius because OP has a bad habit of over generalizing words, calling 'everyone's a genius and it takes one to know one.', as if that's useful enough, and slipping in the desire to flatten the hierarchy of words. The reasons why definitions and assigning meanings to a word is important is because those definitions impart useful information from one person to another, just enough to help make sense of what a person is communicating about. For instance, calling everyone a genius perverts and corrodes the inherent meaning of and uniqueness of the word 'genius' to then make it equivalent to 'normal', or to 'mundane' which actually destroys and muddies the word 'genius'. Likewise calling Nikola Tesla a 'genius' is warranted because of his biography, and the reported feats of intellect, visualization powers, and engineering knowledge unparalleled by any other engineer of his time, therefore the usage of the labeling him as a 'genius' is required, but in @Razard86's desire to muddy that word we'd never appreciate how truly a 'genius' Nikola Tesla was.

@UnbornTao True, which is sort of why I feel that Game B could be a trap, and maybe Game A is the best we got currently speaking.

@EugeneTheSage Try to convert and do more isometrics exercises instead of other modern day fitness programs.

@Leo Gura In fact, I could claim that the entire case Daniel Schmachtenberger put forth, is a gigantic matrix of motte and bailey fallacies stitched together. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiR0czO4fqBAxXDUUEAHVzWDl8QFnoECAsQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMotte-and-bailey_fallacy%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20motte%2Dand%2Dbailey%20fallacy%2C(the%20%22bailey%22).&usg=AOvVaw238YAz05CQ2mncsZ7b_sHY&opi=89978449 For example, Daniel's goal is to try and persuade/convince more people to adopt towards game b and move away game a, but when pressed to give an argument for this either he doesn't address those arguments back directly, or he often will string many irrelevant points and features of many contexts together, extrapolate them and weave some narrative for why we all should game b instead of game a, and then push for people to adopt game b despite not making an argument for why game b should be adopted, and doesn't demonstrate the limitations of game a, because by definition we're all under game a and gridlocked by Moloch, by perverse incentives to not move to game b when game a gives benefit and more power to some groups, therefore maintaining game a meanwhile making game b less convincing as a field to move into. Never mind the group level changes that have to happen, even to convince and persuade a person into pursuing and transitioning from game a to game b is tricky because that person will lose benefits gained and sustained by game a moving into game b.

This was a nice argument and debate by Saanvi, she's far more consistent with her argument than Destiny, and Destiny had to rely more on wording stuff far more, and bringing up many points irrelevant to the main argument and topic of abortion:

@Razard86 Sure, I partly agree with you, but you do understand why we have definitions to define terms in the real world right? So when you're stating to me that 'Everyone's a genius, and it takes a genius to see a genius.', you do realize you were trying to generalize and devalue the definition of 'genius' and falsely equate that quality of genius to everyone, which by consequence means that everyone's a Daniel Schmachtenberger, and it takes a Daniel Schmachtenberger to know and see another Daniel Schmachtenberger right? So if everyone's a genius, then genius becomes very mundane and ordinary right? Do you understand you were trying to flatline the hierarchy created with various degrees of intelligence and genius, and trying to democratize genius yet devalue it's significance right?

@Leo Gura True, this apocalypse and world extinction talking points have even corrupted Adyashanti of fear mongering hippies and spiritualists that visit him. As much as a genius Nikola Tesla was, in his last 5-10 years he was getting obsessed with making a death ray machine or something. I guess we're back to a yin-yang asymmetrical yet balanced, and too much genius could also be an excess too. Too much of a good thing can be bad too.

@Princess Arabia Great you understand my example of @Razard86's take of my post, when he generalizes to say 'everyone' is a genius, and it takes one to know one, completely devalues my points, and attempts to corrode the meanings of my words and the words 'genius', which is why I provided those videos of those people gifted with incredible memory, not many have that capacity to remember everything in their lives, some do, some don't, some even have aphantasia and can't remember images and visuals, do you understand? Even here there's a hierarchy based on genetics, and other developmental factors, so @Razard86 trying to flatline the meanings of my words is disrespectful. Glad you understand how I felt when he did that.

@Rafael Thundercat What do you mean? Everyone who's a genius uses bunches of expressive words. Yet it takes a special genius, like Eminem, to see another genius that uses expensive words. Because when you can do complicated abstraction of the universe and capture all that in the English language, you are certainly an English man.

@Princess Arabia I partly agree, but that's not the main point I'm making and arguing for, that was towards @Razard86 when he posted this: So @Princess Arabia, what is the quickest way for me to devalue you as a person, as a human being, logically speaking? For example, if you claimed in the past the following: 'I don't really believe this, infact, that's not how attraction works. Good looking? Good looking to whom. Put 10 pictures up and you will have different opinions as to who finds who attractive and good looking. An "ugly" (just for communication purposes because I donlt see people as ugly), an ugly person can see themselves as quite attractive and get more dates than someone physically attractive who don't view themselves as that, and that goes for both male and female, but more towards the male side since men usually go for looks first.'. And I said to you 'So? Everyone is attractive, and everyone is ugly, and every man goes for the looks, and every man and woman that's ugly can see themselves quite attractive. However, it takes a sexy attractive person to see the attraction, it takes the ugly person to see the ugliness, it takes both ugly males and females that see themselves as quite attractive to see their attractiveness.'. Am I devaluing you by hyper generalizing your take?

@Scholar So far, seems like the USA has to take a stronger stance and make clear to Israel that it's support is conditional, so if you do retaliate against HAMAs, keep the casualties to a minimum or suffer economic sanctions and more limits imposed by USA. Also, notice that your takes here are getting less and less quality over time, as you keep on fighting Leo, and you keep on arguing without making an argument for either side.

Found a nice one, reviewed by Andrew here and quite a long one:

@Juan Yes I do, so what does that have to do with @Carl-Richard's assertion that he's a genius?

@Razard86 The main problem is that alone is not compelling enough to argue why Daniel Schmachtenberger is a genius. Just stating everyone's a genius dilutes the meaning of genius, and you stating it takes a genius to know a genius, so what? It's like stating it takes a person who remembers everything in their life, photographic levels of memory, to know one, plus everyone's great with their memories, therefore why should we care about people like these when everyone is really great remembering everything in their life: This also dovetails to why hierarchies in existence are important, and why flattening those hierarchies might have many costs such as immense devaluing of what makes a genius a genius and not a genius, right?

OMG, this is another good source to analyze the body language, tonality and even statements made: If any of this is true, then this finalizes my intuitions about that whole Mr. Girl and Destiny drama, about Destiny being a sexual predator and sexually manipulative, about that whole Lauren Southerns and Destiny conspiracy. I have minus 1 respect for Destiny and people like him in this internet space, like holy hell if all that is true then Mr. Girl wa right all along, and the smearing campaign against him was unjust. Jesus Christ! But anyways, back to analyzing this video:

This entire drama is a nice example of immaturity online. Even before knowing this I felt very suspicious about Destiny and why there was drama between him and Mr. Girl, and even Destiny and why Andrew Wilson was involved, but after this video I hate that side of the internet and Destiny because at the end Mr. Girl was actually right:

@Carl-Richard The videos you've provided, while somewhat convincing, isn't a sufficient explanation for why Daniel is a genius, so what is your argument for why he is one? Also, why is Daniel Schmachtenberger a genius, over someone like Nikola Tesla?

Maybe bring back Trump:

Bring back Trump, make him president again, he'll stop this madness: