yetineti

The reality is that we’re discussing things we can’t possibly know for sure, and it doesn’t really help anything. We have no way of knowing if someone like this is insane, calculating, naive, radicalized, or something else entirely—it’s too soon to tell, if we ever can. Speculating about these things or theorizing about how we could have prevented it—whether by addressing bullying, mental health, or something else—often feels like a detached, oversimplified analysis. To those who are directly affected by these tragedies, the path forward is often painfully clear, and this kind of distant commentary can seem hollow and unproductive.

Just because something makes sense, doesn’t mean it will help people make sense. What you said is correct Leo. Did not bother me, personally. I understood. But as you can see, you’re confusing people. When you try to say why someone committed an atrocity like this, it is hard not to imply things, even unintentionally. It becomes, unhelpful.

@Leo Gura I’m not saying I don’t understand why the shooter did it or that we shouldn’t address the underlying reasons like bullying or isolation. You are explaining the obvious. But the way you’re phrasing this shifts the responsibility entirely away from the shooter and onto others in a way that seems more offhand than serious. Comments like ‘guys like you’ or focusing on paying attention to a manifesto don’t add much—they come off as ineffective and distract from the real cause of the harm. If we’re going to have a meaningful conversation, it has to focus on accountability and constructive solutions, not these kinds of vague, profound-sounding remarks.

hey - hey there - buy whatever you want from the store and eat it.

@EdgeGod900 I was. The comment to you was in regard to your locker room talk comment. I understand Leo was not trying to bully and that you probably were not even offended. But it is clear neither of you have any connection to this and are just having fun talking.

@EdgeGod900 It is simply perverted to joke around the topic at hand. We have all done it though. Your joking implies one of two simple options: A) You have no connection to this shooting and should probably grow up a bit or B) You are connected and this is your way of coping.

@Leo Gura I hope you find a way to reframe however it is you’re trying to make your points. I know the place this shooting happened. The idea that ‘if I’ - whatever - there will be less shootings? Ha - what a rude joke Leo. Maybe, you should take a note from yourself. If the one thing they all have in common is being bullied, why haven’t you considered the way you phrase things yet? I have heard you talk about it before. Maybe, one man’s bully is another man’s jokester. Catch yourself using Truth to hurt others. And stop it. If it’s not productive, it’s not productive. Love you man, thanks for everything. ❤️ Lets get everyone to Stage Green; they aren’t ready for you.

Unhelpful

A classic thread. Meat Eaters run their mouthes without a thought and Vegans moralize the majority on their high horse. Yippee!

😂

You can zoom into anything infinity, from a physical, visual level. You may just need tools. What you can see without tools, such as a microscope, is just human quality vision. ’Human quality vision’ is inherent to being a human. If we had different vision we would be something different or similar. Our vision is calibrated to the median focal length best suited for our survival needs (assuming you don’t have glasses). So while we can zoom in or out, with tools, it is simply not practical most of the time. When it is, we often come across more riddles and questions about what we’re looking at and many times it is unclear if anything will be worth its time discovering. We could operate in a world with more depth so to speak. Perhaps birds already have more of this and some animals have less. Or for instance some animals are colorblind whereas we can see color. These are all just different dimensions to difference experiences. If we were to hear everything at once, see everything at once, feel, etc. We’d be God. But you’re you and I’m me. We see what we see.

Hi there Leo’s recent blog post blew my mind. I have been scraping at similar words myself but was no match for his clarity. I also would like to ponder the poles/inflection point of the paradox. (Leo has a great video where he goes over dozens of inflection points. One of my favorites.) Anyhow - this idea of insiders and outsiders. What are some definitive inflection points? But first, what are some more characteristics? Insider Characteristics: -Could’ve chosen to be an insider or circumstances could’ve funneled the bias -Firsthand knowledge -Bias towards circumstance (situational attributions) -Apart of something in-particular Outsider Characteristics: -Could’ve chosen to be an outsider or circumstances could’ve funneled the bias -Second hand knowledge, often closely tied to firsthand experience interpretations -Bias towards internal factors such as personality, character or inherent traits (dispositional attributions) -Independent — These may not be perfect characteristics but examples of what I mean to take notice to. — Lastly, where are the inflection points? Also, most here are presumably outsiders. How are we getting by? As someone relatively young, that’s mainly been an outsider, I’ve had a lot of moments of imposter syndrome. The outsider knowledge + a little wit and encouragement and one can really seem like they know more than they do. But, as Leo mentioned, insider knowledge of any thing grandiose involves heavy investment of time, among obvious other risks. I’d imagine an insider feels the same way about pausing their life and stepping out of it. Inflection points? Comments? Ideas?