Parththakkar12

Oh no sir. They are not competing for a safer vaccine. They are competing for the vaccine that comes out the fastest. Whoever brings it out the fastest, wins! The safety-guidelines aren't being applied to them, they are getting emergency use approval. They have full freedom to put out whatever crap they want to put out! As long as they do it quickly. It is a time-race. My mom says this is how it works when any new vaccine comes into the market, especially in an epidemic situation.

My mom is a medical doctor. She and her medical community think that it is too dangerous, that it isn't tested enough. They won't take it, let alone give it to their patients. This is what my mom thinks, who researches this stuff round the clock for a living. But you, sir, want to 'be the Hero who sacrifices yourself for the greater good'. You know what? Go ahead and do it! Ignore the doctors, ignore the fact that it isn't tested and that it is a free-for-all for the pharma companies. The pharma companies will thank you so much for your sacrifice! They will send you flowers, in fact, for 'being the Hero that sacrificed yourself for the community'. They will eulogize you to no end, they really will turn you into a martyr. Bill Gates will be proud.

I understand that you don't want people to generalize. Here's the thing though - just because you tell people to not generalize, doesn't mean they're going to stop doing it! Human beings generalize. We are talking in the realm of stereotypes here. They exist and affect our lives. The point of generalizing is to be able to observe general, collective trends in society and to address them.

Is bitcoin, a decentralized currency, a libertarian dream come true? Do you think it'll last or it'll crash?

It would be a very complicated, case-by-case decision. I'd have to go with my gut on every decision. It depends on the complex ego-dynamics and what's in the highest good of all parties in the specific situation.

I want to make a list of dysfunctions in the current education system. Chime in! Exams give you points for being right instead of being useful Classes condition you to sit passively in a classroom and zone out instead of actively contemplate and learn what you want to, i.e. lack of activity. In fact being active and not sitting still in class gets you punished! "Teachers" value the facade of attention over actual attention. Exams give you limited number of points which condition you to believe that you can only make a limited amount of money in adult life. We assume that school is useful for kids without really asking kids if they're really growing as intended by the school. My claim : School isn't useful to kids for their learning, rather it's a tool society uses to condition kids to enslave them when they grow up. We assume that an educational environment is necessary for kids to learn. This is not true. Kids learn from anything and everything in their environment. My claim : Child labor is better than school education, as you learn to bring home some cash and you learn a craft that's actually valued by someone! Of course, massive value placed on memorization which is utterly pointless, especially now that we have Google. It conditions kids to believe that knowing what society knows is a useful thing, when the reality is that adding to what society knows is valuable. Most of the crap kids learn in school is utterly useless! A lot of schoolwork in Languages, Math, Science, Social Sciences is utterly useless and is a waste of resources. Conditions us to be useless to society and imprints us with the belief that society doesn't really want us to be useful. (Credit for this one also goes to parents btw) Kids go together to school, which conditions them to go with the herd. It also conditions them to believe that mainstream society has it all figured out. Everyone's treated the same way, which conditions them to believe that everyone's the same and there's nothing unique about anyone. Somebody tell me what the point of homework really is, cuz I haven't figured that out yet! Exams give you points only if you give them the one right answer, which conditions you to believe that any question only has the one right answer. It also gives you points for being right and takes away points for being wrong, which conditions you to believe that being right is valuable/significant while being wrong is not valuable. This is not the case, as right/wrong are relative and value is relative. You don't have to be absolutely right in order to have a significant perspective as there is no absolute right/wrong. "Teachers" aren't open to other answers than the one right answer, which makes you believe that people out in the world never reconsider their opinions when faced with an alternative perspective. I'll continue adding points to this list.

Productivity, productivity and more productivity. Here in India, most people's lives are all about productivity. Productivity that isn't just survivalistic, but that brings about change in the individual material circumstances of people. Individual and collective. This is a difficult thing because survival is much more of a grind in a third-world country than in a first-world country. You will have to work harder to survive, so it can be difficult to create positive change in your material life. That's what's going to have to be done though. People will actively resist what you do and the risks you take because recovering from failure can be harder in a third-world country. Here in India, there has been a collective asking for economic development for decades. Everyone wants it, there is no resistance to it. This is high Blue/low Orange where the collective as a country works together to develop itself economically. Then, as we move higher into Orange, the nationalism will go down and the individualism will go up. India is a good example of healthy nationalism where the collective works together to develop the collective in a united fashion. In the final stages of this, there will be a need for a falling away of old, Stage Blue control-structures and the need for more individualism. I think India is ready for more individualism right now. This will take India to a whole new level.

You cannot debunk them. No belief-system or ideology is absolutely right or wrong, proof is a circular concept. This could not apply more in any other context than in politics. You could not find a more appropriate context to apply this truism if you tried. They really do believe what they believe. They have 50 years of experience backing what they believe. It is going to be very hard to change their mind. So if that's what you're after, good luck! There are kernels of truth in what they believe. I'd suggest focusing on finding those and growing yourself in the process. You cannot change someone else's mind, you can only change your own mind. This may involve putting to question what you believe too. If you're able to do this, only then will you be able to have a reasonable conversation with them. Only then will they be open to what you're saying, because they will understand that you understand what they're saying, you understand their perspective. This will make what you're saying a lot more important to them and their mind will be a lot more open to what you're saying. That's your opportunity to create change.

First of all, it really is okay to not have good wishes or forgiveness for them. It may really be in the best interests of others to have such people gone. Realize though that when we indulge in such thinking, we're also being selfish and we're playing their game, so it is fair game. If you really want to have compassion for them, my suggestion would be to look for the positive intention behind why they're doing it. There will always be a positive intention, that is a genuinely positive intention. (Not just I like killing people or something) You will see that it is impossible for someone to really have mental clarity and be dangerously selfish at the same time. There will always be some form of delusion or another.

Is it humanly possible for Trump to really get away with that? Would the MAGAs continue with it? I hope not! That would be really Hitler-ian and overtly fascist. It is a democracy after all, right? The justices, the House, the Senate, etc. exist. The Supreme Court may not like that situation.

I think this is over-simplified and too much of an 'us vs them' narrative. I know, you'll say that 'I'm not necessarily judging the ego as bad, I'm just saying that Trump is an accurate representation of the ego'. I know that. Yet, I think this is over-simplified. Your solution to the 'ego vs spirit' problem is to beat the 'ego' by taking the side of the 'spirit'. This is where the 'us vs them' dynamic gets created. The issue here is that we tend to assume that there is no truth or validity whatsoever to Trump's perspective, that he and his base are completely deluded. This is why we put Trump in the category of 'ego'. Wouldn't be so easy to do that if we saw the validity in his perspective. Then, if you find some truth in there, he'd be on the side of 'truth' or 'spirit'! I am calling this out, especially on the Left, because this is exactly the kind of thinking that will lead to the civil war. If you ask me, the only way to avert a civil war is by seeing the validity in the perspectives of Trump and his MAGA fanbase.

@lmfao It's fighting based on ideology. People are literally taking away each other's jobs over what the other person said, let alone what they believed. This is worse than fascism, because at least fascism is enforced from the top-down. If a fascist leader goes, the fascism will go away, but here, the people are trying to go for vigilante justice. Justice for no crime whatsoever other than saying something stupid on social media. They're literally hurting other people over ideology. The solution to this would be for people to dis-identify with their mind and to realize that you cannot capture the truth in your ideology or your mind. They need to realize that the truth does not need defending. When that happens, they will stop defending 'the truth', they will stop assuming they have the truth and they will admit they don't know. Then, they will rely on the appropriate government bodies to do their job and give justice that way. (Damn, now I see why they project the attitude of vigilante-justice on conspiracy theorists. All of this is projected onto conspiracy theorists. Now I understand Leo's video on conspiracy theories. I think Leo lumped it in with cancel-culture in his video.) Another solution - start calling out snowflake-like behavior. I cannot tell you how much of a weakling snowflake you have to be in order to take someone's job because of some racist thing they said. This is insanity on a level never seen before.

They look and seem simple-minded. There are a lot of complexities and nuances they're unconscious of. You want to be paying attention to what they're missing. This can give you some very important information on how you can wake them up to what they're missing and how you could lead them into the next step of their evolution. This is something to do for years. If you can pull this off though, you will be on the leading edge of conscious people on the planet.

The reason I ask this is that democracy is fundamentally based on a majority-wins system, which is a zero-sum game. Can a system that's fundamentally based on zero-sum games lead to World Peace? My claim is it cannot. You might ask me 'So are you saying we should accept tyranny? Are you saying that dictatorship is better?' You're asking this question because you only see two options - democracy or tyranny. There could be more ways of doing this. You also might say 'Democracy is necessary for survival. If you don't have democracy, you will devolve into chaos and anarchy.' Here's where it gets interesting - the problem with politics is that it is only about survival. Do you think survivalism can lead to a state of World Peace? Sure, it can help you survive, but going for World Peace is a different ballgame altogether. It's not the same as trying to survive. The state of Peace comes when we realize that the ego is an illusion, which tells us that survivalism is not the way to get there. This is the case individually. I don't think this will be different on a collective level. The reason I say this is that I see this big illusion on the Left, thinking that 'If we keep trying to maximize our collective survival advantage, one day, we will have Peace, Love, Light and Happiness!!' which I think will never happen. Not saying the Right is any better, you have to be on the Left in order to even start to care about the collective survival advantage. How do I think this is going to happen? We're gonna have to get to a point where democracy completely malfunctions first, then we devolve into a state of anarchy, then from that chaos, the possibility of a new, peaceful system will arise. Do I think it will collapse in short order? I don't know. What I do think though, is that it will have to collapse before we create a new, peaceful system that will help us reach a state of Peace. What's my solution? I don't have one, not yet. I do strongly think though that democracy isn't it. I think that the solution will naturally arise out of the anarchy that ensues once democracy collapses. This is why, I think that anarchism is more conscious than democracy at the moment. What are your opinions on this?

There are a few ways that democracy is eating its own tail. What if the majority elects a totalitarian? Is it still democracy, or is it a dictatorship? What if people don't uphold democratic values because it serves their own survival agenda to not do so? Is it still the case that they're the bad ones and democracy is the good one? Who is the arbiter of this? Isn't democracy supposed to be by the people, for the people? Democracy is all about having the majority beat the minority. What happens when the democracy starts to pass legislations that care about minorities to give them better representation? Does that eat its own tail? The education-system advances people who are the best at complying and following the rules, so when they occupy positions of power, they lack the strength of character to really take risks and really lead the people to a better future. A lot of Stage Green progressive agendas about improving race-relations and gender-relations are not about survival anymore. They are about resolving conflicts between major collectives. Could this agenda to resolve these major conflicts and bring about peace be thwarted by the very structure of democracy itself, which is a survivalistic system? Of course, it was revolutionary to come up with the idea that the people can peacefully elect their leader to run for them when it was coined. What about the situation today though, when we're more focused on resolving suppressed conflicts and making the world more peaceful than maintaining a surface of order? Can a system that's based on maintaining order through brute-force control really pull this off?

Trump's brain will not connect these dots because he is not in his rational mind. This shows that his stage is prior to Orange or even Blue, it's Red.

There are no positive reasons essentially. It's all negative, fear-based reasons. Of course, progressives and leftists will easily see that there aren't any positive reasons, but even right-wingers and conservatives don't really have positive reasons to vote for Trump. They just hate the Democratic party. They hate Hillary Clinton, they hate Joe Biden, they hate Kamala Harris. They make a lot of moral cases against the Democratic party. They don't like suppression of Trumpism, some of them don't like the suppression of conspiracy theories by tech companies. They feel like tech companies are censoring them out because the tech companies have a vested interest in promoting the Left. Here's how their rationale goes - tech companies are pro-immigration because it cheapens labor, thereby taking away jobs from citizens and giving them to immigrants. Therefore, tech companies have a selfish, biased agenda to bring progressivism in, which is a tool of capitalism. They make a moral case against this and vote against this.

Is anyone getting tired or bored of this election yet? It's been 3 full days and it isn't ending. A part of me is like 'Just declare the winner and call it a day already! How long do you want to drag this on?'

This is not a problem of the game per se, or getting conditioned by violent media. This is a problem of your son gravitating towards violent media if he does. Generally, when a male (child or adult) gets really identified with a violent character in a video-game, it means that he doesn't feel empowered in his life to create what he wants. This can come up in revenge-fantasies, desire to be violent, being a bully at school, etc. This could be a response to getting bullied at school. It's very normal for boys. If you'd like to do something about it, you can have his father coach him to be more empowered in his life. (I'm assuming you're his mother) If the problem is bullying, he can teach his son to fight, or get someone who knows to fight to teach him to fight so that he can fight bullies at school. This will help him feel more empowered in his life in general and he won't gravitate towards violent media that offer fantasies where you're empowered and violent.

@Hsinav I haven't played video-games in my childhood because I wasn't allowed to, or very strongly discouraged from doing so. It is an unfulfilled desire of mine. I have a feeling that I will have a midlife crisis one day because of this! I understand their reasons for stopping me and I don't particularly regret not having played video-games. It's not a serious thing for me and I'm not in a hurry to go for it, I have bigger priorities. Even though I wasn't allowed, I still could have found a way to play them but I didn't, cuz I had bigger priorities. If it doesn't overtly hurt your son to do it, like if it doesn't seriously hurt his grades or something, I'd suggest you let him play video-games. If his dad or some male authority figure teaches him some discipline and work-ethic and holds him accountable for studying, having some fun here and there should be fine!

One day, we will wake up to the ultimate reality that Erdogan is a bad guy. Your grit and determination when it comes to enlightening us about this will pay off one day, despite the evil media censoring you out again and again and again. You don't give up, you get back up and you go at it. We are with you on this one!! We support you!!! We are proud of you!!

That moment when you realize that you're in a close election and everyone is out to get you. Nothing can save Trump from this situation now.

I'd start with an education system that teaches kids how to think for themselves and to know themselves. That would be step 1. The rest would be history!

My point is that if you look at it purely physically, the election is people writing something on a piece of paper and other people counting it. Same goes for courts, it's people talking things out in a courtroom. But a civil war is very different! It looks like people actually shooting each other in the face. The tragedy is that people may shoot each other in the face for precisely nothing in physical terms. Government/politics/constitution/policy is just an idea in the human mind. It's not an actual physical thing. There is no physical, material payoff to doing this. They'll just fight over ideas. You may say 'But those ideas affect people's physical lives!' Yes, they do. They affect people's physical lives because people let it happen. No idea has the power to ruin your life if you don't let it. The problem is that people have externalized their power to the government/politicians/their favorite party/their opposition party so much that now, when their favorite candidate that they're so attached to loses, they will actually go out and hurt some innocent because of it. They will go and hurt another ordinary human like themselves, while the elites sit on their asses and laugh at them!