Danioover9000

@jaylimix Um, are you trying to justify Israel genocide of the Palestinians??? Because either form of ethnic cleansing is part of genocide, as defined by the UN tribunal's definition of genocide, with some examples of genocide events from South Africa to the fall of the USSR and some states there performing genocide of other Muslims. Famous example of genocide is of Nazi Germany.

Is it just me, or is this happening for others here? Please confirm, because if edit is gone then I will have change up my schedule for journaling, as I do long journals and sometimes come back to adjust the current post of my thoughts.

@Vrubel IMO I was actually complimenting you by comparing you to a wild, passionate ruby. I take it you're more like an Emerald or diamond instead? I just can't figure how it's insulting to be compared to a precious ruby gem? Hate rubies? But okay I'll stop comparing you to precious gems then if you offended. Continue with your accounts for how Israel has chiseled out it's existence as a mighty state right next to Palestine.

Just a really good lesson in bias and ideology, and conflating standards in one field and misapplying them onto another and calling it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Plenty of lessons of delusion in terms of developmental factors, misleading and misinforming.

Quite an interesting share, both the introduction and speech given, video by @Carl-Richard. I will give my body language analysis, verbal, discourse, and some statement analysis when it's relevant: My impressions of the speaker introduction: Intuitively felt defensive to me. Main reason is the constant slight lip compressions and retractions, with a few moments when he really lip compresses/retracts especially at 0:04, "for LGBT people" then quick lip compression/tension, with most statements ending with this micro tension around lips. At 0:15, 'everyone has an opinion' small smile to lip compression. and 'everyone has something to say' is followed by eyebrow flash and lip compression(eyebrow flash means feeling surprise, emphasis or social connection, given the discourse, setting and context likely emphasis and social approval more so than surprise), and the words 'LGBT youth' more obvious lip retraction but also could be a mouth shrug because lower lips raise very quickly(mouth shrugging is the same as an epistemic shrug, meaning feeling uncertainty, uncomfortable or anxious, an 'I don't know' feeling/thinking about a person, people, situation, or what he just said, incongruency between conscious and subconscious mind here). Overall good body language, good performative illustrators and signs especially since he's on a podium addressing the audience. Especially suspicious when he does his call to action for the audience to buy tickets to see other Wachowski movies, feels far more non-verbal signs of incongruency, and micro shame, as if he can't believe what he's saying to the audience. Especially the part where he's welcoming Lana on stage, all felt very performative and exaggerated. Felt so cringe, which is probably why Lana felt that need to joke about that introduction.🤣 My impressions of Lana Wachowski, her introducing herself, addressing the speaker, her actual speech: Generally Lana felt to me very reserved, her overall body language and tonality felt subdued and slight defensiveness with moments of trying to relieve nervous tension with plenty of jokes and some self deprecating humour, plenty of joking around to try and persuade the audience's states while trying to also influence her state of being as well, probably crowd nervousness due to type of discourse and setting which she does say she's not used to public speaking, but I actually felt that, when she takes a deep inhale(indicative of distress and trying to relieve stress), then tuts(verbal strong disagreement/disapproval, likely to him and less to audience or situation she's about to be in) and feels the paper she has with tension/some fidget, followed by her joking at him "I'm gonna make a sequel to that LITTLE INTRO I THINK(verbal micro tension here, definitely belittling his presentation of her)"while shaking her/his arms and shoulders a bit, leans into the mic, and audibly slams her hands and paper down onto the podium surface, definitely not happy with his intro and/or trying to release nervous tension. If I do have more time, definitely something interesting with her speech and what she wrote, definitely statement analysis needed here, which will be time intensive for me. There's also some interesting non-verbals and even moments of incongruency as well.

@zazen Spot on assessment based on many developmental factors, and living proof of @Leo Gura's video on collective ego points to. Nothing is worse than some event that shames and embarrasses the collective into a cultural zeitgeist.

@kenway I agree, this is a real time test of people's integrity, and real time test on how deeply they lie and distort reality from Israel's actions towards Gazans. It's pure devilry all of this is.

I do feel like this is worth watching.

@Vrubel If you say so, wild ruby.

This is such a damning video. Context: South Africa has released a 84 page essay detailing how Israel is performing genocide to Gaza, and asks for the UN tribunal to keep Israel in check and to make Israel accountable for it's military handling. Here's this spokes person for Israel: My first impressions on that Israeli speaker: deceptive body language, and manipulative verbals. Firstly, claiming that South Africa is playing 'advocate for the devil', 'criminally complicit', 'oct 7 MASSACRE'', 'HAMAs RAPIST regime(good thought terminating cliche here. What's next, another 44 baby heads decapitated?)', 'crimes against humanity', 'adding and abetting THAT machinery of genocide(HAMAs are terminators now...)'. Also after delivering loaded mind slaying statements, at 1:04 he dry swallows, BTW in body language dry swallowing indicates high stress typically, for me strange time to dry swallow here, after statements that slanders against South Africa's 84 page essay to a UN tribunal. Right after that, eyebrow flashes at the word 'STATE' of Israel, and at 1:10 he does a chin jut and head shake to his left, micro aggressive head movement towards South Africa. Quickly after that, he does an exaggerated eyebrow flash and tensed facial expression here of disappointment saying 'how tragic'. I'm sorry, so very biased and preferential speaker, obviously very objective and not funded by Israel to speak utter GARBAGE, coercing, and not so subtly threatening to sue South Africa for 'blood libel' or whatever the hell you on about, but I can clearly see deception here snake, go back to the hellhole you came from. We've had enough of misinformation and propaganda campaigns from your end of the aisle. Disappointed that this speaker is so amateur that he doesn't even make the effort to hide his deceit. Obviously HAMAs should be dealt with, but I can't help when I spot manipulation tactics done by such a greenhorn, so sloppy it's gross. Now, you've got to ask yourself, in the bigger picture of politics, if this is determined t be true, and South Africa wins this case and the international court from UN will enforce their measures against Israel and even against Biden and his administration, was this worth the risk of Biden not being more stern against Israel's military handling? Was it worth a risk, assuming if these are true and both Israel and Biden lose the legal court battle, and are tried for war crimes and Biden for enabling this genocide to happen, was it worth it to obfuscate and instead not being active in keeping Israel in check?

@Gennadiy1981 Your entire argument and it's premises falls flat against @Raze's thread about saving Israel via stopping the war because you assume he's making this argument, but the user could have just as easily quoted someone else, so at best you're arguing a second hand messenger, at worst you're arguing at nothing but a troll thread, wasting people's times with this.

@Raze I firstly don't speak their language, I think it's Hebrew and not Arabic, correct me if wrong, so my read into her body language and tonality is at least a third reduced in accuracy, can't do statement analysis or word choices here, but I can at least do body language, verbal, and discourse analysis on here. My impressions, overall she's very emotional and distressed, her tonality displays urgency and desperation, plenty of facial cues such as eyebrow flashes(feeling surprised, emphasis or social approval/connection), plenty of illustrations with her hands and looking around the podium to her audience I assume. Also, given she has Israel flag to her right she's a representative of Israel, therefore speaking for Israel. I detect moments when she verbally says 'Palestine' or 'Palestinians', and when she says 'Biden' she spikes in activity, over emphasizing. I can only assume it's similar to Adolf Hitler: passionately speaking against a common enemy, although I don't hear mention of 'HAMAs', or 'Hezbollah', or 'terrorists', but 'Palestine' or something similar is used instead, which means she's speaking emotionally against Palestine or the PLO, emotionally appealing to Israeli against PLO/Palestine more so than HAMAs per say. I don't know, and could be wrong. If someone can translate that's great, but I think it's important to note a lack of mentioning 'HAMAs' but mentioning 'Palestine/Palestinians', so maybe she could be emotionally appealing to stop the war on Gaza, unlikely possibility at this point, but it's possible, but why I think it isn't is because she mentioned 'Biden' and her body language in that moment was more antagonistic, my feeling here, as if she's complaining and throwing a tantrum that 'Biden' has ordered Israel, lately, to try and limit it's war and attacks on Gaza.

@zazen My first impressions of that clip: 🤣🤣🤣 To be fair, I've remembered seeing him in past videos, and there are moments when he's speaking English tiny bits of stuttering or tongue twists, so clearly English is not a fluent language for him. Now I initially find it hard to believe, based on his appearance, and presentation, and possibly him valuing high status positions and valuing politics that he'd advance this far with a stuttering problem, so I think it's likely IMO this stuttering isn't natural or isn't part of his speech impediment, more likely due to feeling distressed and verbally self censoring saying 'Israel' to her very loaded questioning regarding the Beirut assassination. To be fair, he did slip up at 0:30 saying 'Israel is a war', despite her questioning, and somehow found himself stuttering. Stuttering itself isn't a sign of deception, but a sign of the mind trying to internalize linguistically how to answer and verbally continue the answer without jeopardizing one's career or reputation, considering this question is about the Beirut assassination, therefore one really wrong answer from him likely will have reputational costs to him, at least that's my feeling. Also, the start of him answering her question, his tonality inflexes, on the word 'obvious', feels like an emphasis trying to say how 'obviously' this is someone's fault other than 'Israel'. Several factors could have triggered this stuttering, even a 'brain fart' moment is a legitimate factor because in some interview footages this did happen, and I remember seeing the author interviewed stuttered, blink rate increased and she's just searching for the right answer, even though the question was simple and isn't attacking her book but she somehow lost her train of thought and came off too defensive, and due to her feeling shame and embarrassment and a long pause, further worsened her brain fog moment and it became one viral moment in the internet. To be fair to him, despite my knowledge and some experience body language analysis and communications, in that position I'd probably fumble and screw up in a few ways IF I haven't prepared myself for that line of questioning, but IMO she wasn't really attacking him in that question, but I do feel like after he uttered 'Israel is at war' he became self conscious that he's going down a VERY DANGEROUS topic line, such that he non-verbally felt he had to self censor which brought up this stuttering, which always ends up being clipped.

Really good talk, worth a watch as we have 1 systems thinker(Daniel Schmachtenberger), 1 pundit(John Vervaeke) and 1 intellectual who also realized no self(Iail McGilchrist), talking about tbe meta crisis in a debate format with Daniel Schmachtenberger in the middle. It's not arguing or debating, but good will, good faith dialogue between, not the shitty streamers style of talking: Many good lessons in terms of Spiral dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing and traits by Myers Briggs and the Big Five personality traits modals, 9 stages of ego development by Jane Loevinger, Archetypes by Carl Jung, Integral Theory's other lines of development in life and societal domains, ideological differences and beliefs indoctrinated by culture and family upbringing, and information ecology and warfare. What are your thoughts on the Meta crisis? What are your thoughts on game heory, and game A and game B? Do toy like the video, and that setting? IMO nice fireplace setting, the wooden design, the marble and various shades or blue bricks, but boring looking monochrome black fireplace. Lovely lamps and window. Good tonality and body language, word choice. Good discussion setup with Daniel in middle, John on right and Iain on left, small coffee table between them and camera position opposite to Daniel but 1-2 metres away, nice carpeting and comfy armchairs. My impression is this is sub communication of aristocracy and upper class values, that this is a rich man's room with big brain individuals, but are wealthy in knowledge and worth. Whar do you think of the interview and discourse framing? I did a bit of body language analysis, verbal analysis, some discourse and statement analysis and overall good mood. Nit pick here is John Vervaeke and his bringing his hands together in a steeple, pointy fingers. Typically prayer positions with fingers out non-verbally shows power and aggression. Iain's pacing is slowest in comparison to Daniel and John. Reasonable good communication from Daniel, good emphasise on certain words and communicating good will, careful not to reframe, letting both men open statement and frame this meta crisis in their way. Also, Daniel's appearance of the white bushy beard, classic Wiseman look, simple t-shirt and pants, John Vervaeke wears more a confy suit, not business but ones that educated intellectuals wear, the good student wea, like what George W. Bush's opponent worn before the Iraq war, plus he's wearing glasses with thick black frames, again makes him look smarter and a boss. Iain McGilchrist wears similar but colours are coffee to cream light.

@kenway True. 😁

@kenway Everyone is at varying degrees, otherwise you'd no longer be you.

@Nivsch @kenway I think you both would get along in a coffee shop if you both weren't this bi9ased and ideological.

@Kazman 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Ramanujan Some history written by winners is full of shit, but also full of truths. History is complicated and not just right or wrong. Europeans killing 90% of native Americans via virus is no fault of their own, as the historical context shows their understanding of disease spreads and viruses were limited compared to modern times. If you want to blame them with this specific point, then for moral consistency also blame the Mongolian empire for spreading the black plague via the silk road westwards, although key difference between Mongolia and European settlers is that Mongolia somewhat intended to spread the black death there, whereas the European settlers, the GB, Italians, Spanish, French, German settlers, wanted to go to new lands to settle away from their own native lands that they struggled with far more. Because Trans Atlantic slave trade was universal and an industry business at that time, and beforehand human slavery was also practiced by the Asian culture, the Arabians in the middle east, the Greeks/Romans and ancient world, and EVEN THE AFRICAN CULTURES. In fact when Europeans eventually were involved in the trans Atlantic slave trade, the reason why it took off quickly was because the kingdoms and monarchs in Africa were already enslaving other losing African tribes and selling them to Arabians and to Europeans. Also, I will keep on emphasizing this, GB WAS THE ONLY COUNTRY AT THIS TIME TO HAVE ANTI SLAVERY POLICIES. GB was the only country to be warring against the slave trade in Africa and other parts of the world, and imposed heavy economic sanctions against countries that practice the slave trade, and even fought sea battles against pirates that are involved in the human slave trade. That's for historical context, now we look at the present which is different from that historical context as I have stated covers other cultures, again like how the Spanish settlers dealt with the Aztec empire's human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism of other smaller tribes in that region that's a different context showing some good from European colonialism. Now back to present, you can say that Israel now is part a settler colonialism and expanding onto Palestinian lands, but the more greater part is that Israel is being lead by Zionists with an alt right ideology and nationalism/patriotism that wants more land and for Israel to expand more.

@zazen I agree at this point any building in Gaza may be seen to be a HAMAs fortification from IDF, considering the many tunnels they made. I hope Israel and others clean the mess they made in Gaza with all that building and social infrastructure destruction. I agree there ae 2,000 pound bombs being dropped, which are designed to have shrapnel going outwards. That type of bomb is in fact too large and too heavy for precision bombing, and yes in war times propaganda and brainwashing go way up to demonize/dehumanize the other side in this Israel/Palestinian conflict. I can't believe some here don't see in this binary opposition the asymmetries in this conflict in terms of suffering and trauma, that the Palestinians have it way worse than Israel even before this new conflict with HAMAs. I agree with that statements, typical generalizations and distortions of reality, putting Israel on a pedestal and covering them with victim cards, but not Palestine cuz clearly they're monsters. I also believe that the 'voluntary' migration here is just part of the genocide process, I don't see how nobody could see this pattern. Everyone failing the common sense test here, because when a country bombs the hell out of properties, buildings and other social infrastructures get damaged which leave the citizens more limited places to live or take shelter, I mean targeting social infrastructures like this is considered a war crime isn't it?

@Gennadiy1981 In your biased opinion, of course.

@Nivsch Firstly, this post has a lot of bad faith framing: Is 'any' (generalization) aid in the world *will(would) help them if a 'brainwashing cult'(Your interjection, nobody here every said, nor I have stated HAMAs or Hezbollah as a brainwashing cult, you did) will keep controlling them(assuming HAMAs or Hezbollah will forever remain in control of Palestine or the PLO) The 'only'(interjecting an absolute condition here as the only one way) real aid is to change the authority there to something really different that is not HAMAs(I'd agree here specifically) nor PLO in it's current form(the PLO that is constrained by Israel for decades?) Without this(another absolute claim to bolster the previous absolute claim), every thing else(generalizing) will be a *jock(joke, but I'm not laughing, don't find this post funny with it's typos), and nothing will improve(another absolute assumption, again who's saying this other than you? Not me, nor anyone else in this thread but YOU).

@hundreth Cool, don't send them money, fine. Send them what instead? Aid? Labor equipment? Extra cement? Team of experts to rebuild their damaged properties, assuming Israeli settlers don't get their first? And again, who's going to pick up the pieces Israel has destroyed in Gaza, or in the West Bank? The ruling Zionists and Israel? Palestine itself, even though as a nation it lacked sufficient social infrastructure before this conflict, and especially after and during the bombings by IDF onto buildings? Should other countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Iran, should they instead be responsible for picking the pieces in Gaza? And which group will be responsible for Palestinians migrating away from this conflict? Will it be America, after all best buddies of Israel due to the enormous influential arm by A.P.A.C, a Israel lobby group in the USA? Who will cover the damages? Who gets to decide who or what group covers the damages?

This is quite the interesting video, somewhat educational but mostly entertainment dunking on some body language analysis YouTube channels. I will do a body language and tonality analysis, as well as discourse and statements to see if she's truthful, joking, maybe defensive or deceptive: Firstly it's a good video, for me hard get a read on her body language and tonality, as she consistently has this resting bitch face, combined with her performative gestures because this is her YouTube video and she's putting on a persona on camera, first off good presentation, visuals, music, humour, mixing both entertainment with some educational coverage, tackling the issue of whether body language analysis is a pseudoscience or not. Onto specifics, the real issue however, is that she mistakes the scammers and con artists in this field for the entire field being a pseudoscience, just akin to how Kanye West had a problem with one individual, very likely, and because of that, which makes him biased and preferential against that one person, generalizes and distorts that negativity onto the group the person represents, she's doing exactly what Kanye West and others with preconceived notions of body language analysis, or any other field that's a soft science or a fringe field or ideology would do, all because it's an alternative field of interest getting popularized into the mainstream culture and she's having this ideological dogmatic reaction against it, specifically likely towards the few individuals that are scammers trying to scam and take advantage of this field. However, on the big picture level, and based on many developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits(Myers Briggs and Big Five personality traits modal), Architypes(by Carl Jung), 9 stages of ego development(by Jane Loevinger), states of being and becoming and consciousness, Integral Theory's lines of development in life and societal domains(by Ken Wilbur), ideological beliefs indoctrinated by cultural and societal programming, family upbringing, and the information ecology we're all consuming, from social media sites, to alternative/mainstream YouTube videos, news, and many more information points that manufactures consent leveraged by big corporations for conspicuous consumption, and all other prior contexts, she's inaccurate, and wrong, and is misleading and misinforming about her takes of body language, committing lot's of false conflations and some categorical errors with deep ontological, epistemic and methodological ramifications. Firstly she has confused body language analysis for a hard science, and confused what scammers and con artists claiming they're body language experts as pseudoscience. I specifically agree if she has an issue with one or few scammers, swindlers, grifters, fraudsters, opportunists and con artists claiming they're body language experts and being disingenuous via appeals to authority, pathos, ethos and sometimes logos, their fallacies committed, and taking advantage of a customer base, but her framing is dishonest and bad faith here because she has issue with HOW THEY'RE COMMUNICATING, and conflates that to labeling the ENTIRE BODY LANGUAGE FIELD AS A PSEUDOSCIENCE and the COMMUNITY OF BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSTS AS PSEUDOSCIENCE FOOLS. Here she's confusing and conflating, and judging the whole field I consider a soft science more so than art. She's projecting hard science standards and scientific methods that bias and preferences for qualitative methods, methodologies, and hard science that bias for mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry, technology, materialism, rationalism, and reductionism, standards based solely on hyper controlled laboratory conditions and thinking that this line of thinking justifies her case and assertion for body language as a pseudoscience. Ontologically, metaphysically and epistemically she has made a big categorical error and asymmetrically judges body language with hard science and academia standards, when she in fact should have used soft science, sociology, psychology and qualitative methodology, methods and standards to judge and discern the body language field instead, and she should have instead focused on the scammers themselves specifically, and not generalize and distort her criticism for one person onto a group/field of interest. Very good example of misleading and misinforming, and the ego thinking it's right in doing so. In fact the majority of her argument points, you can reflect that back at her and she's as guilty as her criticisms of body language experts as well, if not some more from just the misunderstanding and conflating a few scammers and labeling the entire field as a pseudoscience because she suffers from the same confirmation biases against not just body language as a perceived pseudoscience, but might as well any scientific field that's paranormal/supernatural and fringe as a pseudoscience. Another deeper problem is that she underestimates the deep problems with science and academia as a field, and underestimates the deep bias they have in thinking they can just view the entire world, or parts of nature and categorize each into neat little boxes, into small picture thinking, and treat life like it's a controlled experiment, in laboratory conditions. Nope, life is far more complicated than rationalists and materialists have you believe, especially the part when a group of academic scientists, biased for academia culture, attempting to critique Paul's work as pseudoscience is THEIR PROJECTION AND BIASED PREFERENTIAL STANDARDS. To be clear, I ain't attacking her, or critiquing her from selfishness, or defending the scammers, but I just hate this deep misunderstanding and mistake she's doing here, just because a field of interest has a few scammers DOESN'T MAKE THE ENTIRE FIELD PSEUDOSCIENCE! Tired of when people generalize and distort reality when they have grievance for one person or a few persons, but then project that onto an entire field or group. That's ridiculous and callous behavior.