dyslexicCnut

I've been quietly following the discourse taking place here for a while, and I'll now speak up to say that it's quite funny/sad/absurd to see Leo defer to a "stage blue" rhetorical tactic when he cited the recently leaked Floyd footage to mitigate the culpability of the murderous officers. Within 10 seconds of Floyd opening his car door the officer points his gun at Floyd merely for being confused and unsettled. At this time Floyd has presented no physical threat to the officers whatsoever. To save my own life I could not conjure what mental gymnastics must be taking place in order to interpret this video as anything other than additional evidence that Chauvin deserves no sympathy. Yes, Leo, you pompous enlightened simpleton, the police SHOULD absolutely be coddling a discombobulated subject for 10 minutes when the alternative is a potentially fatal altercation. Leo should be beyond embarrassed to have allowed these ignorant words to escape his private thoughts. It appears he's been duped into giving credence to some feeble alt-right narrative that seeks to conflate the likes of a disconcerted black man with a dangerous criminal. It's rather disgusting and quite disappointing that Leo would use his platform to rhetorically lessen the culpability of a murderer by claiming Floyd brought this on himself. Make no mistake, that is in fact what Leo is doing here. Despite presenting no threat to any officer Floyd was at gun-point within 10 seconds of opening his car door. The fact that he could have avoided this fate had he not been discombobulated is completely irrelevant. This next quote is where things get really problematic. We're really treading dangerous waters now. We've only seen Floyd's behavior while his mental state was compromised to a foreign substance, so exactly what substantive basis could Leo possibly have for callously casting him into an unflattering "stage red" category? I would ordinarily deem it an uncharitable interpretation to ascribe outright racism to this faulty perspective, however, when I consider this rhetorical folly alongside Leo's ignorant defense of disgraced/banned YouTuber Stefan Molyneux, a blatant white supremacist (evident from his wikipedia page) seen below, I can only wonder whether these foolish perspectives are facilitated through an underlying racial prejudice. When you've resorted to defending an obvious white nationalist with the phrase "his heart is in the right place." There is definitely something wrong. I want to strongly advice all of you to avoid lending credence to Leo's political takes. It is true that Leo has amassed one of the most useful compendiums of knowledge pertaining to nonduality, and this is great, but don't allow his role as a credible voice in this field to lure you into his political ignorance.

I am on SSRIs. @Leo Gura Why not? I took 600ug on SSRIs? It was a bad trip with good insights that made it easily worthwhile.

Does anybody have a reasonable explanation for this seemingly newly emerging phenomenon of "Rapture dream" testimonies appearing on youtube? Despite my scientific approach to comprehending reality, and my strongly held positions of religion being a poisonous slew of dogmatic bullshit, I'm finding myself forced to give credence to these testimonies. If you search "rapture dream" on youtube you'll certainly find multiple accounts of what was witnessed in various dreams, uploaded within the past few weeks, days or even hours, all of which attest to an imminent arrival of divine forces, and "end times". The reason why I can't help but take them seriously is because, a few months ago, I had an absolutely insane, paradigm shifting LSD experience in which the mystical facets of reality were made undeniably clear to me (an egoically tough pill to swallow, as a previously stubborn atheist), and I recently had vivid flashbacks of this experience. The flashbacks (provoked merely from marijuana usage if you can believe that) evoked another mystical experience, in which I seemed to rather unambiguously experience communication from divine forces that manifested through my common surroundings, such as my entertainment, podcasts and such. It was as though every word coming from my speakers presented a double meaning, in which I could interpret as divine messages that made perfect sense to me while also discernible as commonplace, unremarkable podcast banter, such that if another person were in the room, they would simply hear the crude, raunchy humor that you would expect from my typical means of entertainment, but in this moment of seemingly undeniable mysticism, I was interpreting every word as a divine expression of consciousness, and as personalized messages that deeply resonated with me. This freaked me the fuck out at first. Imagine thinking to yourself "God if you're really there, make some sort of noise", then hearing the exact noise you conjured in your head, but in fact truly audible in the physical world. Now imagine this happening repeatedly, time after time, such that there was no longer any doubt you were being communicated with. The moment that it became clear what was happening, I started shaking uncontrollably, like no other anxiety I had felt before. Within seconds though, I was comforted with an indescribable understanding that what I was experiencing was actually a "good" thing, and that I should not fear it. One of the "messages" that I received, was a warning that society is truly going to be fucked in the coming months. Exponentially more homeless people, excessive violence and suffering, to be specific. This all corresponds fittingly with the rapture dream testimonies I am now seeing. Has anyone else experienced anything similar? Does anyone know why all these people are saying 2020 is the year of the rapture? The night I had this experience I came across a youtube channel that gave me strong "turquoise" vibes in which the main speaker seems to be alluding to similar conclusions. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHc9cSStIlcDtbb5pWivN9g I just want more information, like, seriously. This shit is crazy, I would never have expected any of this to be possible even a year ago, and I would have previously dismissed this alluring personality as a batshit insane psycho mental patient. But instead I find myself desperately waiting for more of her content, as I have religiously watched every video.

@Leo Gura Haha, the ol' ban hammer. I suppose that's one way to win an argument. There are multiple users who have defended my approach, and it's interesting how the ones who are not invested in defending any narrative have commended my patience in dealing with baseless viewpoints. Would you mind giving an example of something I've said that crosses a line? Perhaps in PM as not to obscure the thread's subject matter. In regards to this topic, I'm curious whether you would consider the "white supremacist" description of Proud Boys as classified by accredited US intelligence agencies enough to justify the terms' usage in reference to these extremists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-SPLC-10 @StephenK You've made my day, I really appreciate your open mindedness. I hope my tone hasn't at all alienated you from further discussion, but I would understand. I've noticed that I myself require a somewhat condescending opposition in order to be the most receptive to counter arguments, so it's an approach I reflexively cling to. If there's any confusion still, in short, the proper argument is that, of course genetics determine human behavior, but when we are specifically examining the difference between white and black prosperity, there is no evidence suggesting genetics play even a role in this disparity, and the academic consensus has consistently found that these differences can be explained exclusively from socialization and environmental factors. I'm curious if you have recently come across any media sources that have persuaded you to be more open to the environmental argument to explain black community issues, and I would ask that you please provide them if so, or was it necessary to have encountered the arguments I put forth in order for you new perspective. Very curious for you answer on this one.

@neutralempty Big ooof

@neutralempty Imagine thinking your sarcasm has even a modicum of merit when you've come here, giving credence to another user's misunderstanding of an obvious joke, and then reacting with scorn once I rightfully correct them. Don't get too upset if I make some unflattering remarks about the level of wits you've committed to this discussion. @commie My dude! Finally somebody gets it. I find it troubling that people like @Etherial Cat have no trouble flinging unpleasant remarks (while misinterpreting me entirely) like "that's bullshit and makes you look foolish", but I'm not allowed to address them with the same disrespect since apparently they think I'm doing it from a position of unwarranted authority? As if I'm somehow in the wrong for articulating my viewpoints with the level of finesse I admittedly tend to. Edit: have a follow, sir, you've earned it.

@Etherial CatNo, you should absolutely be called out with strong language for misinterpretting something yet having the confidence to rebuke it despite being unaware what you're referring to. I apologize for nothing, but I'll rephrase it a bit since it was so triggering. @neutralempty You say it sarcastically, but....

@neutralempty Yeah I guess you wouldn't, haha

Haha, can't say I'm too surprised someone actually thought I was calling him a white supremacist? r/woooooooosh The joke is that anyone can call someone anything for any reason, and it will sound foolish when there is no merit behind it.... I've overestimated the intellect of this forum unfortunately. Edit: Like, seriously, he said nothing that could conceivably be racist, and to address his meritless aspersion of me being "stage orange", I made an equally insubstantial accusation his way as a joke.. Like, c'mon. It was obvious.

r/wooosh

Sounds like something a white supremacist would say

@StephenK Yet again you fail to muster any semblance of academic citation. I used to believe genetics played a role in the state of black America, it is the common sense, uninformed position after all. That was until I was exposed to the academic consensus and the peer reviewed citations, some of which I have provided you with, which you refuse to acknowledge because they contradict your narrative. I grew up extremely privileged, am at no risk of poverty, nor have I been at any point in my life, so there goes your "blame others for your problems" argument. I've never personally faced any issues due to my race, but in the mind of someone like yourself I suppose just being black is enough to warrant misery. I also find it amusing that you insist I did not pick up on the nuance of your argument when everything you've reiterated is precisely what I addressed, and previously understood your position to be. StephenK: Okay, I'll explain how you're strawmanning me and the nuance you failed to pickup on. The entire argument : *Everything that was already made clear in previous post with no new substantive rhetoric* That deserves a trophy my dude. As if merely deriving a different conclusion from what you've espoused means I'm "strawmanning" you lol. Nice try, next time come with some academic citations to make a point. This forum sure does love to ascribe these flimsy color model labels to anything but themselves. As if merely defending a position against a race-realist automatically puts me in an unflattering category of personal development.

@StephenK And yet you still don't bother to explain what I'm strawmanning. Nice try mister race realist.

@Meta-Man I'll think I'll be staying a solid 6 feet away from the likes of yourself, even post-covid. Simpletons: "Blacks are bad because genetics" Academic: *lists scientific citations negating the claim* Simpletons: "Whoaaa, take a chill pill man." Lol, good shit. Hahaha, it's actually hard to tell these days. It's as if Actualized.org hired a virtual court jester in the form of our good friend @StephenK over here. They are beyond incorrigible.. and yes, your version is more accurate haha.

Is "take a chill pill" just a thoughtless 'go-to' response that you just throw out automatically? There's no basis here since nobody is belligerent or even upset. In order to be "strawmanning" you, I would need to be arguing against points you are not making. You sure do rely on exaggerated language to muster any sort of discernible thought, lol. Try to commit to using terms that you actually the meaning of. I've thoroughly debunked all of your claims, yet you've called me intellectually lazy while you yourself are not willing to even address the assertions I've put forth, let alone commit to your own research. Please attempt to actually debunk the things I've said otherwise you can safely be dismissed as a hapless simpleton who's opinions can (and should) be discarded like a shit filled diaper.

You're making blanket statements without reasonably proving anything. The idea that people would be open about white supremacist view points is absurd, considering the immense stigmatization you'd be subjecting yourself to by adopting this approach. A white supremacist has every bit as much a reason to be covert about this worldview as any broad range of "racists" would have. So no, white supremacist is in fact a label that can and should be inductively applied to refer to anyone who is advancing white supremacist politics. Again, this line of reasoning can also be applied to a broad range of "racists" who obviously don't care to be receptive to rationales that would implicate them as racist. You're not saying anything unique about white supremacists that separates them from the groups I listed earlier. Nice of you to project this faulty definition despite my explicitly stated definition. The popular argument is essentially that it is not possible to deductively prove somebody is racist, but since we all can make reasonable inductions based on their conduct/language, there is valuable utility in ascribing these terms to people who express racist values. Same applied to white supremacist values. Dammit, I forgot to mention in my last post (since I predicted the fuck out of this response) that you had better not invoke some tenuous claim of ambiguity pertaining to this man's remarks. He directly says "I believe the white race is the superior one" and does not specify any motives pertaining to dating or sexual attraction for this conclusion, he merely says this perceived fact is why he dates them. Just because the context of the conversation is about dating does not mean the statement "I believe the white race is the superior one, so I date them because of this" requires further specification before you can conclude that he is racist.

Haha, what a fun read. Wasn't expecting an outright race-realist to come crawling out of the woodworks. Your post was good for a nice laugh at least. I imagine you'd be pretty devastated by the epiphany of how unaware you're coming off if it ever occurred to you, so I'll offer a bit of help. Despite your unfounded certainty that environmental factors are not solely culpable for racial behavioral differences, you couldn't muster the sense to bother citing actual evidence that genetics are the root cause. In order to prove that environmental (external) factors are not the underlying culprit, you would need to first provide evidence that genetic (internal) factors are to blame, which you've predictably failed to do. I laughed out loud when you brought up "personal responsibility", as if such qualities are not inherently part of behavior patterns that are being addressed by nature of the discussion itself. This hapless oversight of yours is what's being addressed in the series of questions: "What explains black behavior?", Simpleton: "personal responsibility", "What explains the lack of personal responsibility?", Simpleton: "their culture", "What explains the culture?". Simpleton: "uhh, collective behavior?", and the cycle of ignorance continues.. Eventually you need to attribute these features to either genetics or environment. You're arguing as if personal responsibility accounts for a third determinant inherent to the same polarity that genetics and environment belong to (internal/external). Big 'ooof' moment. Clearly this topic has you quite fervently invested, evident from your eagerness to ascribe such emotionally charged language towards the conclusions I've put forth, ("stop being a victim and a cry-baby", "this is how a lazy mind operates") despite these conclusions having been derived from comprehensive research and peer-reviewed studies. Given your emotional investment I know you'll surely commit to your own research to assure that your positions can't be easily discredited with academic citations. Surely you'll take the time to actually educate yourself before pretentiously spewing pompous nonsense towards people beyond your cognitive means, right? ..Right?? (haha who am I kidding?) Sources: Criminology (2003) study found that environmental and social differences accounted for the gap in crime rates among racial groups, not simply innate tendencies of any race. https://www.academia.edu/19482806/EXPLAINING_RACIAL_AND_ETHNIC_DIFFERENCES_IN_SERIOUS_ADOLESCENT_VIOLENT_BEHAVIOR_ Developmental Psychology (1986) study observing mean IQ scores among black/interracial children raised by white parents relative to black parents, finding that the differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually entire Black-White IQ gap," undeniably giving merit to the environmental argument. https://data.information.dk/upload/2019/viden/Moore.pdf World Archaeology (2006) study debunking claims that evolutionary genetics account for intelligence gaps between prehistoric blacks and whites. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249007312_Africanist_archaeology_and_ancient_IQ_Racial_science_and_cultural_evolution_in_the_twenty-first_century West Virginia University - The Research Repository (2010) study found implicit racial bias among courtroom judgements of ambiguous evidence and verifies jurors are significantly more likely perceive race-neutral evidence against dark-skinned suspects as incriminating, contributing to black incarceration, thus bolstering environmental disadvantages. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&context=wvlr @StephenK I've read just about every word of these citations, and I'd love to see you try to negate even a snippet of it (predictably by citing The Bell Curve or other debunked pseudoscience, lol). Not quite sure what makes race realism appealing to people in this era, but you'll have to forgive me for suggesting it relates to the insecurities of inadequate men. I imagine a balding obese man, twice my age, in their 40's or 50's who clings onto the imagined prestige of his white skin and declares himself genetically superior on that basis alone.

My dude, you just put out a video about the importance of epistemic pursuits of truth, yet you're insisting that the only way to be a white supremacist is to self identify as one? Holy shit, I'm beyond disappointed. Let's see if you'll even bother addressing this obvious deconstruction of your logic, or if you'll conveniently ignore it, once again, in favor of something less challenging. We can undeniably agree that a racist person will not self-identify as racist, nor will a fascist self-identify as such, nor a neo-Nazi and the likes. What separates a white supremacist from this group? A white supremacist must simply conform to the definition, which is simply "The belief that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial groups, especially black people. and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society" According to you, the definition of white supremacist is "Any person who overtly refers to themselves as a white supremacist". I imagine your definition of racist is "Any person who overtly calls themselves racist" with no further qualifiers. This is obviously untrue. Wow that was easy. I wonder if you'll still reject this example however, since he doesn't explicitly declare himself a white-supremacist. You forced me to waste paragraphs explaining why that is a nonsense prerequisite. If you don't think this guy meets the definition of white supremacy then you have absolutely no right condemning peoples' failure to pursue epistemology as proudly as you seemed to in the latest Actualized video. Okay, I give up. You obviously didn't even watch the video you were shown, but if you had managed to hang in there for a mere 28 seconds you would have had that question answered. I've started it at 9:41 as opposed to 9:13 so that your epistemic mastery won't falter at the insurmountable task of committing to 30 seconds of attentiveness.

Leo: You have to be white to be a white supremacist. Everyone with a brain: *cringe*

I have some embarrassing information to share with you. The example I provided shows a conversation where she explicitly rejects the external circumstances as a plausible explanation, so try again, next time after having properly comprehended what you're pompously responding to. I get to be pompous since I'm not making any embarrassing oversights.

No shit. The argument I'm making is that if you explicitly reject external circumstances as a potential culprit for black community issues then you are implicitly ascribing their shortcomings to genetics rather than socioeconomics, which is to affirm the race-realist position that black people are genetically inferior, which obviously denotes racism. There is no point in responding to this argument with "well black people still need to pull their pants up". It's like saying "criminals just need to stop doing crime". Totally pointless when the discussion pertains to the causal relationship of environment and black crime.

@Leo Gura Oh I see, you'll take on the easier challenge but won't address the response that thoroughly takes your logic to task. Your argument now is essentially, you have to be white in order to be a white supremacist. I thoroughly demonstrated how that isn't true in the response you conveniently skipped past, despite myself being the one to initiate this tangent of the discussion.

I disagree, as I'm sure you could have predicted, given how stubborn people tend to be regarding these matters and I wouldn't exclude myself from that characterization. The reason why it's still appropriate to call them "white supremacists" is because there's no race other than white people who the Proud Boys are making an overt appeal to. The culture you mention which they are trying to protect is a very specific subculture that rejects the likeness of foreign lifestyles to a degree that prevents them from being seen as anything but radicals. If we just use the definition of white supremacy, "The belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society " then it's pretty difficult to exclude the Proud Boys from this label. Are you really going to tell me that the Proud Boys don't believe black people to be inferior to whites? The reason why I have no trouble calling my own black mother a white supremacist is because she quite obviously sees black people and other minorities as inferior to whites. It was easy to conclude after just a few questions. "Why do you think negative attitudes and behaviors are prevalent in the black community?" Her answer: "Because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions." "Why do you think black people 'refuse to take responsibility' for themselves?" Her answer: "Because the culture doesn't emphasize these values." "Why do you think black culture fails to emphasize enough good values?" Her answer: "I have no idea why they can't get it together." "Is it possible that slavery and modern socio-economic factors are to blame?" Her answer: "That's just a cop-out. People need to learn to be responsible at some point." "So you reject the idea that issues in the black community stem from their environment as oppose to their own failing?" Her answer: "Of course I reject that, it's a cop out." There are only 2 possibilities. Black culture developed as it has due to environment, or genetics. The source of the issue is either internal, or external, and if you reject the issues stemming from external factors as my mom clearly has, obviously she ascribes these failings to the genetics of black people (interior). Are you, @Leo Gura, trying to tell me that the Proud Boys would answer these questions any differently? Of course they would not. They are white supremacists. But of course... They could be called Japanese or Hindu nationalists/supremacists. In this instance we are vastly talking about white people, so you haven't made a terrific argument here. Although it's the least substantive, this quote was the easiest to refute. We can definitely agree that the Proud Boys are undoubtedly fascists. Do you really think the Proud Boys would perceive the term "fascist" as any less of a strawman towards them than the term "white supremacist"? Of course not, in fact it's rather obvious that they would take greater grievance with the term "fascist", despite it's obvious applicability. And of course it does not give them any conceivable "upper hand" by referring to them as white supremacists, just like progressives do not benefit from the false aspersions of being "communists". When progressives are dismissed as communists, people on the right are extremely prone to believing this falsely applied label, to such an effective extent that it does nothing but hurt progressives by emboldening right wing hysteria. I suppose the accredited US agencies have conflated the terms as well? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies

That's pretty dumb, my family is black, and I would easily call my own mom a white supremacist. There are tons of white supremacists that aren't white. Proud Boys are undoubtedly white supremacists, and even if we assume the leader isn't a white supremacist on the basis of his race, it's pretty myopic saying the leadership defines what the organization stands for as a whole. Edit: The original founder of the Proud Boys, Gavin McGInnes cut ties with the organization when it became obvious they were a bunch of neo-nazis, so tell me again how we should shy away from calling them white supremacists on the basis of their leadership. Not even his ideology but due to race. Lol, try again.