Danioover9000

@StarStruck Do you mean 'lion' tearing up a gazelle? Also, why are you falsely equating and conflating Leo Gura with Elon Musk???

@zurew I agree. How Patrick Bet Dave found Andrew Tate and Tristen Tate worth his time to interview and good faith frame is beyond me, and if you know why please tell because they've been arguing more for his innocence or whatever their reason why is.

Slightly different podcast, get see more of their body language to dissect them apart:

Now, this is them in their environment, within their conservative twins framing, but covering a more serious issue. Good to compare and contrast with the podcast they did: Notice some slip ups and assumptions and ego projections that they sled underneath the joking and humour they do.

34:30 to 38:30 is the part I was referring to when they omitted the two statements and didn't described how they reacted that made them lose so many followers. A lot of tells, body language and tonality of defensiveness and disengagement in that time frame, less of deception, but the fact they changed the story is also I'd consider deception here which is why they didn't show as much deception in body language because Keith is telling a half truth, a partial truth that did happened but omitted a few details that would have made them look less than objective conservatives to their current viewers. 1:04:20 to1:10:00, so much to deconstruct. Lots of hand and face movements from Kevin when talking of the Ukraine/Russia war, what if Donald Trump was president which is fantasy. Also eyebrow raise on 'war' from Kevin, seeking social approval, emphasis or surprise, maybe it's emphasis but plus the crossed arms and hand finger movements I'm feeling some defensiveness. Right before Kevin emphasizes 'war', Keith was like 'There's people dying in Ukraine' and other words I couldn't pick up, but I see jerky quick shoulder shrug followed by wide splayed hands, palms facing together and a tensed face, don't know if it's surprise or of disbelief of what happened or disbelief of what he's saying himself. Kevin also indicates a past timeline with his right thumb pointing backwards, implying a future timeline of forwards for him, and also Keith does this sometimes. However, outside body language analysis,. I FEEL some disingenuous intent here, because when he did that gesture plus said 'wars today are not like wars of the past', 'nobody wins' with hands waving from wrist position away that statement, and 'when Russia invaded Ukraine, there's so many things that could be used to prevent them from happening', there's shaking of the head quick and briefly, followed by hand touching each other either to sooth or to self protect, and Kevin's face lights up with a mix of disapproval or disagreement with sudden surprise of that last part of the statement. Personally like this part, and found out this is common in every podcast they do together. Some passive aggressiveness and tension between Adam and Patrick here1:06:00 to 1:07:00, back and forth around what Biden would've done or should've done, and signs of defensiveness and building tension, which resolves slightly when Patrick noticeably raises his tonality to Adam of what he'd do, and is still facing forwards and not even acknowledge Adam's existence, Patrick's leaning slightly away, his right shoulder closest to Adam is much lower than his left, he's like, IMO, talking to a ghost or the screen in front of him, and raising his tone to...nothing. Contrast and compare this exchange and how more receptive and socially connective he is to the Hodge Twins, his guests, than to the professional side kick or 'partner' to his right which he rarely acknowledges mostly by tone if at all. Also, in that brief whole exchange he merely did a few quick glances to Adam but mostly faces away from him, looking forward again with active hands, arms, sometimes using index fingers to 'frame' or to 'make a point' which IMO is aggressive subconscious cues of trying to challenge the other but Patrick consciously suppressing that. Adam also having a mix of less defensive and more open and supplicating gestures towards Patrick, from what his face, hands, arms, and his reorientation to look almost square towards Patrick, SEEKING THAT SOCIAL CONNECTION/APPROVAL, whilst being passive aggressive when Patrick pushes back briefly here and there. Very interesting back and forth for both 'equal partners'. Oh my god, IMO this 'why Nancy Pelosi is presidential something' section is worth replaying for all the body languages between Adam and Patrick and Keith and Kevin, so much to unpack here it's AMAZING. First off, Adam and Patrick debate briefly here, and now I'm reading the body language and tonality, I think really it's Adam raising good points, and is desperate for Patrick's social approval here, because in this 'debate' Patrick still keeps facing forward, not reorienting to Adam, not a face turn and eyebrow raise to Adam, not a turn and open hand connection, not a turn and nod, not even a slower pace and calmer tone to deescalate, just slightly tonality raised by both in slight combat, and Adam gets slightly more animated and gesticulates, throws a verbal 'I got you, two steps ahead man. I'M WITH YOU ALREADY' kind of statements, with eyebrows raised for social approval which Patrick denies him of, it's like positionally the Hodge Twins and the screen are more socially valuable than Adam himself in this social setting, which in his POV i can understand how frustrating that is when your subconscious is seeking social approval but isn't getting that, despite the word choices and some words being charged. On the topics of immigration and the border, Keith and Kevin give so much body language that it'll be long to unpack, but I'll say what jumps to me. When Keith talks about comparing the left and right and Republicans being better politicians, there's a lot of defensive and deceptive body language, and that last part where he praises the Republicans, he retracts his lips inwards and tensed left smirking, a universal sign of 'contempt' and the retracting of lips is mostly the non verbal subconscious mind disagreeing with what's said. 1:17:59 to 1:18:42. 'FYI, for you Adam' says Patrick in a slight condescending tone , pointing with his right thumb to him, but in a backhanded way, palm directly facing Patrick almost in the exact position a person giving the middle finger would give in front of him, that bit suggests to me that to Patrick Adam is an afterthought. For Christ sake, what a pompous sign of superiority complex, clearly to me this 'partnership' between Adam and Patrick is not equal. I'm feeling sorry for Adam LOL. At 1:18:42 - 43 to 1:19:03, Adam puts his hands up, signaling surrender and says 'Let me change the question differently, okay?" Gives good eye contact, brief eyebrow raise and left hand open and pointing to Patrick in friendly supplicating way, as he describes and frame changes by saying 'Patrick, you're an immigrant not born in America right?-and so are you guys-' then Adam says he's a 'Russian immigrant and his family were Russian immigrants that fled the Bolshevik revolution in the 1970's or whatever' and gives this revolving waves of his hands as if hands shrugging above his shoulders, head wobbling with slight eye frown and slight shoulder shrugs, all typical of an 'I don't know' as shrugging normally means, I think his I don't know is the date of his family fleeing exactly. Adam stutters with this 'Do you think that immigrant(hands emphasis this part)-like I FEEL that I-I-I-I WHOLE HEARTEADLY BELIEVE' right at the end of the stuttering, while he's saying whole heartedly agree, he gives left handed karate chops to the table, with most of his upper body to emphasis that he really does care for immigrants. Don't know if this is deceptive, but he's emphasizing here. At 1:19:01 -07, continues statement 'BELIEVE that immigrants should be PROPPED UP AND APPRECIATED MORE(Hands emphasizing palms to Adam) than they should be(looks to either Keith or Kevin, eyebrows raised for emphasis/social approval/surprise)', after that he quickly turns he's palms outwards, eyebrows flash and a mix of shrugging and defensiveness flashes when he says' I don't know-I'M-I'M-I'M saying right and left(hands alternate right and left, remains in that defensive shrugging-'. Camera cuts to Keith interrupting Adam, saying 'YOU CAME THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR' tone raised noticeably aggressive for the first time, with right hand finger pointing with index, right shoulder level with chin as if he's aiming a gun at Adam, subconsciously very aggressive, posture slight lean towards Adam, then quickly Keith consciously corrects his finger pointing by bringing rest of fingers to point with a quick wrist flick and maintains this palms downwards to the table whilst emphasizing the next words 'YOU'RE FAMILY CAME FROM THE FRONT DOOR' adjusts aim to Patrick, with that wrist flick, downwards palm and arm level same, aiming a 'gun to Patrick as well saying 'HE CAME THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR', then when referring to illegal immigrants his right hand adjusts and thumb points to the back and right 'THESE PEOPLE AIN'T COMING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR'. Each of Keith's raised statements Adam was saying 'Correct' in a level tone with slight supplication/defensiveness given Keith's outbursts. Adam adjusts and says' well, then my question would be that are we villainizing these IMMIGRANTS when-' Kevin this time interrupts by saying 'WE SHOULD BE'. Well, we now know, and if you've watched their recent content and takes in their conservative twins channel of the immigration, that they clearly are very opinionated with regards to this issue and don't realize how lucky they are being born and raised in America, despite being poor, in comparison to being born poor in some 3rd world country fighting to get into the USA.

The part where the Hodge Twins introduce themselves is interesting. The majority of the podcast Keith, closest to Patrick, and Kevin on the far right, Keith has a more subdued hands/arm gestures, micro tensed shoulder shrugs depending on certain word choices, and his arms and hands mostly were face down on table, sometimes crossed and sometimes in prayer positions, sometimes reacting what was said or subtly aggressed, his right dominant hand covers left(big brother covering little brother) plus self soothing by slight rubbing of the forearms when gently push back or reacting to a more heated topic. Kevin's hands are more gesturing and more stippling/crossed fingers, with occassionally index fingers wagging at Patrick or Adam for emphasis or subtly warning them, and lots varied hand waving and hand waves when talking about touchy topics, and distancing or dismissing or disagreeing and being defensive in 'waving the people or problem away'. first 20 minutes, that part where they described the moment when they reacted to that big muscly Indian guy bullying the two tall skinny white teens, him taking the MAGA hat and splashing them with their drinks, they did tell them the truth, but they were a bit defensive and deceptive because they omitted the two following statements: By Keith who said 'imagine if we were wearing that hat, and we were there looking like this. Would that guy do anything?' something like this, which already is shaky guided visualization to trigger the viewer to imagine that picture, but the actually final nail in sealing that spike downwards in views is when either Keith or Kevin said 'Make America Great Again!' followed by laughing due to the comedic state, which is largely very triggering because who else said that catch phrase? And what does it insinuate?? Back to present, why did Keith omit the two statements? Intuitive speculation, it's because they are trying to look like objective logical conservatives appealing to that bias and audience within Podcast framing, even though everyone knows and has seen what they're really like in their conservative twins channel, and in the Hodge Twin channel, that he had to omit the two statements to APPEAR like he said an innocently sounding objection to the big guy bullying the teens and taking their hat, when IN FACT he said some very loaded terms and imagery sugar coated with joking and humour that caused that backlash. Also minor moments of defensiveness or disagree between Keith and Kevin when he saying to not clearly say we're democrats or conservatives, the eyes and eyebrow raises(eyebrow raising typically mean the three: social approval/connection, emphasis or surprise).

@Michael569 Based on the hundreds of videos I've watched of Lex Fridman, and based on developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, ego development and shadow aspects, other lines of development in life domains and societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated, and self biases and preferences I don't think Lex Fridman, if I'm thinking and intuitive speculating correctly, if Leo Gura goes STRAIGHT for the non-duality spirituality and God Realizations, I don't think he'll be able to handle those points Leo might raise, I think he'll naturally feel defensive and his mind will close down, he'll try to front listening and hang in there but he'll definitely feel defensive and maybe will use deception tactics to frame control and guide the conversation elsewhere, like with some guests who are controversial he'd try to steer the discussion AKA Kanye West and that guy who did Weed and cocaine, he checked them both subtly pushing back. Especially if Leo Gura will give brutal honesty point blank in private he'll scare Lex Fridman for sure.

@MsNobody Just to let you know, when I was searching for your comment in Instagram it's gone. I think the algorithm automatically removes comments with hyper links to websites, or another possibility is that Lex Fridman's editor or PR manager or himself removed that comment. Maybe less likely for Leo Gura and Lex to interview, especially given how Leo's podcast interview with Charlie from charisma on command and Curt Jaimungal went. I predict it's likely Lex will be very defensive when they talk about science and epistemology, or some spirituality, psychedelics, and Awakening and INFINITE. If interview happens, I will look forward to analyzing their body language, micro expressions, tonality and word choices per topic the podcast covers and will see if Leo Gura or Lex Fridman give deceptive or defensive signs or some other signs.

@UnlovingGod Imma just clarify- This journal's stage red. Decalcifying caricatures unseen- Staged bedded values-taped Within mind's caked eyes. ME? WHO fucks, talks and brags- 24/7? ARE those wanting hoes- YOU? Keep seeing, in-richer tattered clothes. 7/11, heaven's drapery? YOU? I'D bet a male longs FORWARDS-for debauchery. GRAPE, pillaging sausage festivities. WHOEVER to whom- THIS concerns me-too. IS who? To Blame? Whose hose- PRAYS up in between- TO whom the bell tolls WHAT'S A DICK to A WOMB? WHOLLY? I rap poetries POETRY wraps me. RAPTURES in pastries.

Updates: I've been more busy with a few magical rites, and I've been able to complete one of them with noticeable success. Made one for a form of self defense for myself and family, and a spell cast for good luck. Cristy participated in one and it felt amazing.

@Israfil Fair enough, I said what I have to say in this thread and made my peace, and because of my increasing rap sheet in this forum, I will not comment on it further but that's also part of what charged me up beforehand. So, from this day forward I will mostly keep away from the political section, and politics in general, as I'm fed up with how I'm treated here and in real life, and it's annoying me, so this is very likely the last you'll read of me in this sub forum, and I will rarely come back here. I'll maybe check the author out too. I expect I will be left alone. Have a great day!

@charlie cho Sorry, had to take a break from all the discussions here, so let's pick up where we left from from a different more civil angle: I'm not labelling him a feminist hater, I'm calling him a grifter/scammer/swindler/hustler/con artist/cheater instead, who bends the system to his advantage, more apparent with Andrew Tate and less with Patrick. Also, the assumption from you of me calling them feminist haters implies you're calling me a feminist? To clarify, I'm not a Feminist BTW. From what I've understood, from observing their body language and tonality based on word choices, and the bias from which this interview is doing and certain agendas and narratives these guys are trying to portray Andrew Tate in a lighter acceptable framing, I'm not buying into it, as I see more defensive and deceptive signs in Andrew Tate, and somewhat with Patrick, with too much repeating and leading the frame of this discussion, painting Andrew Tate to be the misunderstood 'victim' of mainstream culture, and Andrew Tate giving this over 'masculine' body posturing, tonality and face to head to arm gestures, but I can see past these little orchestrated presentations he's trying to sell. In certain moments, with certain words the body language is a mix of incongruency and 'forced' agreements and nods, despite the prior contexts this guy was in. IMO it's slightly unbelievable than believable. Yes, body language analysis is not an exact science, it's mostly collecting body signs, tone, word choices and micro expressions, plus being sensitive to the framing of the conversation and other contexts to a discussion, maybe I'm somewhat wrong in my observations, but with people who's ego stage is at impulsive or opportunist, these types cannot be fully trusted, so I don't trust Andrew Tate nor Patrick. Great interviewing skills I'll give Patrick that but it's got a certain bias and presentation and agenda which I'm aware of and will not fall for, as I've already seen enough of Andrew Tate that no amount of presentation and sugar coating from Patrick will change my distrust towards him, and rightly so. If you disagree with my observations, could you explain to me where I'm probably wrong here with his body language? Sorry for what I've said about Dostoesky guy and Lex Fridman, got carried with the lunar moon phase or something. I just don't like them, and usually with people I don't like I joke and be sarcastic about it to sugar coat the critique which mostly works. I also never claimed this Dostoesky guy as some...what you call it? Monarch enthusiast? Tsar Enthusiast and sympathizer? Sorry I don't think I've recalled ever bringing up Donstoesky guy, you are the one who brought him up to me for whatever reason. We can't just label them as what? Do you imply I don't have the right, nor can express my disagreements with them, within YouTube? Do you think I don't have the right to write my opinion or comment? What does the 'common man' from YouTube have to do with Andrew Tate's situation, unless you mean young disenfranchised men? If I can't call them as such, what should I call them if they did something bad? Also, here you're claiming to me not to express certain views, and be willing to learn, and not be close minded and dogmatic, but when I read this: 'See this part, and tell me he's a complete chauvinistic fuck up. Even chauvinistick fuck-ups have good views. This part shows Andrew Tate, even as a chauvinistic fuck-up, he's still better than 99% of redpill fuck-ups, or even the cockroach unintelligent fuck-up like the BBC interviewer.' What do you expect me do when interpreting that statement? Act like nothing happened, that you didn't name call, troll, close minded, being dogmatic and not willing to learn yourself? That there's no double standard, or your ego projecting it's insecurities onto me, and trapping me into some frame that isn't there? MAYBE, we've started on the wrong foot and we were too triggered. Let's restart our friendly conversation here, or agree to disagree and we both part ways as I'm mostly done here. Hi, my names Danio, and I'm a Spiral Dynamics witch into witchy stuff, got some nuance bro and sometimes good faith bro take of Andrew Tate and Patrick, although Andrew's a bit of an Aliens vs. Predator guy to me. What's your name, and how are you doing today? Are we done discussing here? Have I cleared up the misunderstandings between me and you and a few users here? @Israfil I just don't like how he runs cover for some right wing loving narcissist, but that's my opinion and maybe a big misunderstanding and emotional turmoil I didn't mean to cause. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. No harsh feelings right? I don't mean to offend right? No more flagging right? If you disagree with me disagree on the content of the post itself, right? Because that's more adult right?

@Majed Very likely he does believe in his lies.

@Migue Lonas A bit of both, but again who cares? Unless you know him personally and you have a real relationship with Owen, Owen for the most part isn't important in the long term, you yourself is more important than him.

@Tanz True, at this point they need a militant leader or something to give order and organization to the democrats. As a movement the left wing is too divided with this and that, not unified in one single vison and are suffering from collective schizophrenia of too many voices squabbling for more power and attention with all this LGBTQ and all alphabets and numbers people, like how are they supposed to plan effectively, when every attempt at a ranking priority or a hierarchy list is shut down, and another list is made, but is shut down, like how? If this is a chess game, the left wing are in a perpetual check patterns within their own side, meanwhile dealing with very vocal and immature right wing alt right types, and also very vocal SJW online progressive types. How can they resolve this tricky issue whilst being a democracy and not regress back into an autocracy?

Another critique, maybe tone down the anti Donald Trump rhetoric. It's repetitive and lacks variety, maybe name a few more worse than him currently or in history, as going on and on about how negative Trump is will make it a more boring talking point in your content. Just mix the critique of him with someone else for a while not talk of Trump because me and others are just rolling our eyes with every mention of you talking of Trump angrily like a child, we get you have a bias against him but at this point it's moot and monotone.

The Ukraine war is not going anywhere, because the war is mostly between Ukraine and Russia geographically speaking. How a war goes anywhere is a bit crazy.

@charlie cho Based on developmental factors like stages of development, morality and cognition, consciousness, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development, life experiences and other areas of development in life and societal domains. Also ideological beliefs indoctrinated, and biases we all have, from these developmental factors and experiences I've had with manipulators and scammers, Andrew Tate is clearly a scammer and a pimp bitch. He's mostly stage red values, and fronts the appearance of a stage blue to orange person, his talks of family and god were AFTER he got severely canceled and Hustler's university closed down so he had to try and manipulate the online Muslim community into following him. No, haven't read nor am interested in this Dostoevsky, he's the author of 1984 or something like that? Screw that, Lex Fridman was his fan so if this right wing shill, Elon Musk fanboy, is a fan of him then I ain't touching anyone he's associated with a 8 mile pole. Shill to the bone, also really annoying talking about conspiracy theories and the twitter files when there's ZERO EVIDENCE of Joe Biden and Biden administration corruption, at best it's just bad behavior from Hunter Biden but that's only on Hunter Biden and NOTHING ELSE, therefore right wing grifter and LIBERTARIAN. Have you read and listened to Eminem? What a true hero, where he came from and how he got to be successful is a true American dream. Compared to Patrick Bet Dave and Andrew Tate Eminem can smoke them alive in a rap battle.

@Migue Lonas I'll assume now that Coffeezilla did his investigation, not as some hit piece but he actually did deep research into Patrick Bet Dave's businesses. Although there's also a counter to that, becuase Coffeezilla was a victim of a scammer in the past, therefore it could be a trauma and therefore colours his perception of those who seem scammers but may not be. Maybe, I don't know, I'm assuming he's got good integrity for journalism as he made it in the Lex Fridman podcast.

@abundance Oh thank you, I forgot how often Patrick does repeat right wing talking points as his bias is that of a Libertarian contrarian anti mainstream guy, yeah that too plus also crude to different points of view especially biases that opposes his! At least he's flashy and energetic with his talking points compared to Lex Fridman sneaking in right wing biased talking points and pumping Elon Musk's delusional Twitter crusade!?

@Mesopotamian There's some truth to this. Based on the developmental factors like SD stages of development, moral frameworks and cognitive biases and development, personality types and traits, states and modes of being and becoming, life experiences and other lines of development in personal life to societal domains, ideological indoctrinations from upbringing and culture and environment, plus self biases towards the world and others and yourself. We'll hopefully appreciate that it's not that far from history that to be a real man means is relative. From being part of some native tribe, as a tribal man your duty is to that tribe, to hunt and gather if you're of a nomadic tribe mostly or an agrarian tribe, as male you need to hunt and gather, and prepare to become part of a war band or raid party and invade other tribes and take their land, territory and women as slaves, for example see the history between the Apache and Comanche conflict, how the Apache pushed them to more infertile lands for which they had to scavenge and nomadically live tribal, how the agrarian Apache then had conflict with Spanish settlers, how part of that led to their horses, large numbers, fleeing to northern American expanses, straight to the Comanche most were not aware of exist, and years later after mastering horse riding and warfare from horses, the Comanche retaliated with many raiding parties from horseback similarly to how the Mongolians used tactics around horseback to dominate and expand their empire. From Tribal to empire and imperialism, and even with ancient civilizations we see more stronger emphasis on traditional gender roles more delineated closely to biological sexes of male and female, especially during the Victorian Era a big reason why is that it creates further protections from getting infiltrated by those of too different societies and cultures, whilst also creating more competition to younger males because to then have sex and to have land, you'll have to be religious and now marry the woman you like, plus you then have to see their family and play that social game and give them dowry and other gifts to show an approximation of wealth and fortune, and if you're of good character and wealth and of suitability to marry their daughter, which in older kingdoms this is more done to cement an alliance between two powerful families or kingdoms which is replicated among the lower servants. In this Era you'll definitely be pressured to play the social game and pursue a marriage and have children, or your male value and standing can be questionable if you can't secure a mate, maintain a marriage and raise children, then why would you be a high value male in a society? So there's immense pressure back then, more than nowadays to marry and raise kids, be or try to be a good father when you're not mature enough or ready for that higher responsibility and burden. Similarly to women in this Era, very oppressed sexually due to the religious outlook from the Abrahamic religion, just to further control for female availability and to also gaslight and indoctrinate the expected traditional female role of that society onto a younger female to control also for promiscuous behavior, similarly to men despite the patriarchal system then.

@Leo Gura So coffeezilla's investigation into Patrick Bet Dave being some MLM scammer a bit exaggerated?

@Jacob Morres I know a few conservatives with more nuanced takes and more honor than Ben Shapiro and these bunch of MAGA, QUANON ALT RIGHT ideologues, but they're not out there busy being public figures and arguing all day with internet dip shits left leaning progressive and socialist bigots or right leaning, they're working in their real world jobs and taking care of their own civic duties in society and taking care of themselves and their family more responsibly than social media influencers ever will and these shill internet based political talking heads. These people I've known will put majority of online to SHAME. Unfortunately, they're in the vocal minority so all you'll mostly get is BS traffic noise with little honor and honest signal online.

I kind of agree after watching this interview of BBC that Patrick's was more moderated and careful not to trigger Andrew Tate too much: However, that's only in terms of interviewing, outside contexts Andrew and Patrick are suspicious and untrustworthy.

@Majed They have a mix of stage red and orange, maybe Patrick is more orange than Andrew but that doesn't matter, both are similar in their biases. At the opportunist stage reason you can use reason, to justify manipulative behaviors from you or to justify lies you tell yourself for personal gain and egotistical reasons. It's debatable in the impulsive stage how complex the reasoning processes are, but not after transcending the impulsive stage as the reasoning is more elaborate to justify personal gains over other people. No, at the conformist stage that ego can still have personal opinions on things, but moderates those opinions to not attack their in group or other out groups as they're a team player, typically bureaucratic in view of life and world.