zurew

Yes it is the best to avoid to fight, but he is right on all his points, namely that if you learn to fight you will be less agressive, you will be more respectful to other people because you will know that shit can get real, you will learn discipline, and you will be able to defend yourself and also you will be more confident in general.

Nope, you don't have to intentionally lie and fuck over people in order to make money , thats what scammers do. There are big differences between companies, so we shouldn't be that reductive about it. Some of those guys didn't get the service what they paid for, so what do you called that if not a scam? One's integrity in this context will be challenged by what tools one is okay using, in order to make money. If you are willing to use all the tools without exception or if you are willing to scam and intentionally mislead people in order to make money, then you don't have much integrity.

This will be a bit of an unconventional advice, but have you ever thought about going to a hypnotherapist with this issue? I don't know how big the success rate is, or how legit it is, but i heard that for some people it worked. Basically the idea is to go into your subconscious mind (where most of your ingrained habits are) and then try to have an effect on those or try to change those, while you are in a deep trance. Edit: Nevermind, i looked it up and the results are bad with hypnosis

Yeah I don't disagree with that, i just wanted to point out, that there are systemic factors that are playing a big role in one's success and we shouldn't deny those, just as we shouldn't deny the ability one has to make himself/herself successful.

If you are living in a racist country your skin color will have a lot of impact on your success/failure. Can you still become successful? Sure, but we have to acknowledge, that it will be much much harder.

Thats fine, but thats still doesn't make Tate's act moral or okay, its just shows that he is capable to do scammy stuff and he is okay with fucking over some people in order to make money. If we would to use your logic, we could justify any bad/scammy act, because "others would have done it anyways". He has that webcam business and he has his casinos, with both of those businesses he is relying on scamming people and fucking people over in one way or other. So one thing is clear, that he doesn't have much integrity and he values money over people. His new HU doesn't seem to be a pyramid scheme, but still, the first HU was a clear cut pyramid scheme.

So then one of the most important information/knowledge you can get will be about how to build a good network.

So if you don't want to end up in hell you will try to do your best to avoid it. Still don't understand whats your problem with this. Its clear to me,that with these premises: actions have consequences we have some agency over things Then this conclusion to me is reasonable: Why not try our best to use our influence consciously, to move towards a beneficial direction?

Whats the alternative, be universal oriented? Thats sounds good, but you need to have the capability and the level of development first to do so. What's the logical conclusion to that premise? To not do anything because everything is predetermined and whats the logical conclusion to predetermination? To not take responsibility for anything. Or if we want to get nuanced about it, and even if assume that everything is predetermined we could say that God wanted us to make and to create our own prescriptions for ourselves, so here we are. If we don't have any free will and everything is predetermined, then even if we end up "creating" or "making" our own prescriptions for society it will be God's will, so everything is good, right?

I don't understand, why is that wrong/bad to try to consciously influence things that we are influencing unconsciously anyway.

I don't see it as a "compulsion to try to control an outcome", I rather see it as a conscious approach because this approach is about recognising what variables we can have impact on [directly or indirectly] and its about finding the key dynamics and how can we impact those variables in a conscious way. If i go to school and i want to get a mark 5, i will try to learn as much as I possibly can, while not focusing on things I have no control over (for instance what kind of questions will i get). Now, if you want to argue that the very desire itself is bad or wrong,then we can talk about that, but I think its fair to assume, that most people want to survive and don't want civilization collapse. If we can agree on the desire, then we can start to argue about whats the best possible way to make that happen.

I think the correct answer is that we have some level of agency over what happens and then there are variables that we aren't aware of and we can't do anything about. Of course we want to focus on things we can have some impact on.

Why would you assume, that we can't? Why shouldn't we want to decide? Do you live your life randomly, or do you decide what you want to do?

No, but this doesn't suggest or tell us anything. Survival nowadays is vastly different compared to the older times, thats why it matters what system you build. For example: If you are living in a system where your survival is depended upon fucking up other parties, then of course the whole world will eventually end up in hell.

Incentives are a key part to their equation, thats why they want to build a system, where incentives are consciously constructed and not random.

I highly disagree with this statement. I can agree that there are times when people are making things more complex than what they need to be, without adding any meaning to them, but on the other hand, what i mostly see is that people oversimplify things so much so, that their message lose most of its meaning and unfortunately lack of meaning leads to poor understanding. We can't start solving problems without recognising what the real problems are and without knowing/understanding why they emerged in the first place. I can see that you really don't like nuance. How would you summarise the "what it is" part in simple terms, that everyone could understand (without getting nuanced about it)? I understand your pessimism, but you don't know that. One thing we can do is to actually try. Not trying will necessarily lead to disaster, but with trying we have the chance to find solutions. I don't really like this binary good and bad framing. They don't make this good-bad framing themselves, they actually say to take more responsibility for our actions, to become more conscious and they actually give frameworks, tools and understanding how to do that.

@Oeaohoo Its clear from your reply that you haven't looked deep into what Daniel Schmachtenberger and what the game B guys are saying and representing. I would encourage you to take a much deeper look into it, beacuse it is actually nuanced and what you are doing now is attacking modernity and globalism without knowing what their positions and thoughts are on those matters. Notice, that you started with attacking his personality and you didn't really make any points or counter points to his ideas. Modernity and globalism are vague concepts in themselves ,thats why you need to take a deep dive in what Daniel Schmachtenberger trying to say . No, this is a bad faith summary of what nuance actually is. Nuance is the recognization that things are complex and they need to be recognized as they really are, without oversimplifying them and without being reductive. And by oversimplifying - losing meaning ,sight ,vision and understanding. Ask yourself this question: Were you really trying to understand their ideas deeply before your wrote your "critique" or you got triggered after the first few minutes and you wrote your text in a reactive manner?

Do some research before you criticize, brother. The first part is great as well. I really liked the "forced transparency" idea there.

Leo doesn't advocate for being overly cautious, he is just saying to be aware of some redflags, there is a middle line there.

Context to that clip is important. He was trying to shake Sneako's worldview to stop him from the hedonistic treadmill.

Yes, and time to time he can drop that filter and entertain vastly different perspectives and wordviews. Whats more balanced means here? Taking positions doesn't automatically mean, that you haven't thought it through from multiple angles.

He can actually tell the Russia/Ukraine conflict from both sides really well. Being tier 2 doesn't mean that you never get triggered about anything. He definitely has yellow aspects to him. He is the one guy in the debateosphere who can actually explain positions really well and in a precise way without strawmanning the fuck out of them . He can debate from a conservative standpoint and explain a conservative standpoint really really well, and he can explain liberal positions really well too. Also, he is always saying that most of the problems are systemic and there are no clear cut easy answers to them. Basically, he can take perspectives, understand them deeply and because of that he is able to debate those positions well. He is also able to meet people where they are regardless of the context of the debate/convo, he is self aware, he is aware where the convo is going (although sometimes he loses that ability). I am not saying he is a fully integrated tier 2 guy, because he definitely lacks some things (like stage green aspects like empathy, bigger picture valuesystem, etc), but he is not a clear cut stage orange guy either. Honestly to me he seems like a guy with tier 2 cognition abilities combined with a stage orange valuesystem.

I think this is not that big of a problem. If they don't read the guidelines they will be forced to read it after they will be temporarily banned from this section of the forum or after they get a warning point. People will learn from their mistakes. Also, if people don't read the guidelines why would they care about a label?

I personally think the labeling part isn't necessary and users could be informed about what is allowed to do and what is not through the guidelines. If they read it,then they will know what they are not allowed to do and i think that would be one of the easiest way to "solve" this confusion issue.

I think one relevant question here is that ,what are we trying to achieve by banning or label people as 'apolitical'. I don't think the labeling part has much of a usage, but the banning part could be used if the standards are applied and set well. Honestly, if i would have total control over this forum, i wouldn't ban based on differing views, i would rather ban bad faith and high level of dismissiveness. I would also encourage people to use occam's razor when it comes to making sense of political issues and maybe i would create a subforum where more speculation is allowed.