yetineti

I’m not against truth-telling. I’m for truth that includes emotional presence—truth that lands, not just truth that hits. When you drop a “hard truth” and watch someone shut down, that’s not clarity. That’s bypassing the responsibility to actually be with someone. To me, integrity isn’t just saying the thing—it’s saying it while staying connected. I’m not saying everyone has to speak the way I do. I’m saying we need to notice when “sharing perspective” becomes a shield from emotional accountability. It’s not projection—it’s discernment. I’ve been in enough circles to know when someone’s sidestepping discomfort by intellectualizing or masking disengagement as neutrality. That kind of “truth” is often just a more sophisticated way of avoiding the moment. And I don’t need everyone to agree. What I’m pointing to is a pattern: whenever emotionally charged topics arise, the conversation often shifts toward detachment—like neutrality, clever framing, or sarcasm. That shift feels safe, but it kills the aliveness of the conversation. So when I see that move happen, I speak up—not to accuse, but to bring us back to what’s real. If someone replies, “Well yes, of course, that’s already part of my model,” I’d ask: is it really? Because what I’m saying isn’t just “some people need emotional sensitivity.” I’m saying: maybe the issue isn’t their sensitivity—it’s us not fully inhabiting our truth with emotional attunement. That distinction matters. It changes the whole dynamic. This isn’t about avoiding truth. It’s not about catering to fragility. It’s about whether we’re fully embodying the truth—or just dropping it like a grenade and walking away.

Mockery dressed as praise.

@integral Are you asking me to tip toe around the Truth? You can say people weren’t engaging in personal attacks, but you clearly don’t even know what that means. You weren’t listening to the people you were talking to.

@aurum I think she’s married. She’s fine. Apologize to yourself for not excepting the role and impact emotions have had on your life if you really care about the Truth and understanding— much less fulfillment, having a decent relationship with people or getting your dick sucked.

No but you just did. If you men want to emotionally manipulate and say it’s Truth, I can play that game all day.

@Emerald I thought me being that harsh came across wrong. We agree though and I understand what you’re saying.

Again, irony.

It honestly sounds like she’s the rational one and you’re the one who needs her to parent you into parenting her then. Long story short, your argument was somewhat ironic.

It’s not tip toeing, its emotional maturity and effectiveness of teaching and meeting people where they’re at. Your girlfriend? Who cares? This isn’t about you.

I am sorry that seems harsh. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in this conversation. What you called being a dick. The men here are being dicks, yes. If they are right about the way women should be treated, they are not acting how they say they should. They are saying what they said they ‘shouldn’t say.’ I am not saying women cannot handle that. I am saying if your claim is women need special handling and then you treat them poorly, it looks extra bad. Principle, that’s all.

I am extremely disappointed with the men here. Men: If you are right. You should’ve kept your mouths shut. If you are wrong. You should’ve kept your mouths shut. Make sense? Good.

Leo— You know the weight your words carry. You’ve built a platform on insight, nuance, and depth. So when you reduce a complex dynamic to “talk about serious truths with women and you will absolutely regret it,” you’re not delivering truth—you’re delivering defeatism wrapped in superiority. You’re too smart not to see what you’re doing. You’re retreating into logic because you’re frustrated your logic isn’t landing. But that’s not the women’s fault. That’s the edge you haven’t grown through yet. The real teaching—the actual work—is learning how to speak truth that doesn’t bypass emotion, that doesn’t shame the listener, and that doesn’t let your disappointment mutate into contempt. You’re mistaking emotional resistance for ignorance. You’re mistaking being misunderstood for being right. And you’re mistaking your own frustration for clarity. This thread started with a provocative idea, sure. But it hit a nerve because there is a real dynamic worth unpacking. You could’ve been the one to thread that needle—humor, tension, honesty, and growth. Instead, you chose the easy road: a mic drop that flatters your followers and alienates the very people you say you’re trying to understand. You’ve told people for years: You must meet others where they are. So why don’t you? Why, when the emotions rise, do you turn your back and call it proof of their inferiority? This isn’t strength. It’s resignation. And it’s beneath you. You can be better than this. So be.

None of you would get a date with a lady with these tones. 😉

Saying you are bisexual and your attraction to men is typical is oxymoronic and really dismisses any bias. Most women’s attraction to men involves also not being attracted to women. Nonetheless, I think what @Emerald is saying is imperative. It is the guard rails to Leo’s work, which can be greatly abused. Arguably more than not. I will say this, however. Leo’s work, when properly understood, cannot be found elsewhere; priceless. Also, I’d make a further distinction, hopefully for clarity, on what he mentioned: “Gender equality in the political sphere is being confused with gender equality in the relationship sphere, where it does not belong.” I think some can be added to this. I graduated in 2019, have older references and a clear understanding of the social equality that is taking place— particularly at an age where dating and relationships become apparent. Gender equality cannot be confused with political equality or relationship equality when social equality out weighs all other social concepts. This leads to dilution of the very idea of a relationship, the need to have one, etc. All of the debate in politics, relationships, etc. is just the merging and dilution caused by ‘Stage Green’ and any one ‘prior to Stage Green’ trying to make sense of it. ’Stage Green’ is not the hippie go lucky lovey dovey it seems. It is a direct response to the hyper-individuality of ‘Orange’ creating its own purpose, its own social justifications, etc. ‘Green’ says it’s easier to forget most of the constructions and fall into your social positioning than it is to actively reconstruct. Hence, after thousands of years, we’re debating ‘relationships’ something that has been extremely straight forward. We must recognize the idea of ‘relationships’ actively changes as we speak. And men and women, today, struggle with understanding where new social equality plays a role in the interdependent nature of men and women as friends, lovers, companions, etc.

😂😂😂😂😂

@Leo Gura You are more provocative in your methods than I ever would’ve imagined. You should have a degree in Experience Engineering.

Why use the term ‘God’ at all? Why not just say ‘Everything?’ You are Everything. I am Everything. Everything is an Endless Love Dream, etc. @Leo Gura

I use AI quite extensively, actually. I have used it for diet and supplements, for example. I find I am willing to tell it height, weight, etc. I will also explain specific situations and see what it thinks as well. I am just weary of it being centralized, like with a journal, or accidentally giving personal information, etc. It also struggles with such large context awareness like you may be wanting, at least with out custom models or additional funding.

AI can be a gift or a curse. It will not make a good commonplace journal/journal. It’s memory is poor, it would depend which AI you use, data issues, no real back up for data, no file management system or custom organization, etc. There is also epistemic consequences that have to be considered for such a thing. Be careful giving your sovereignty to anything, especially an AI. Do not give AI any personal data, remain vague, avoid using qualifying information/information that could build too personal of a data log on you, etc. Always use a VPN and encrypted emails or burner emails that do not have your name/qualifying information in them. — If you can do that, AI will be great. I’d highly recommend ChatGPT and even ChatGPT+ for $20 a month. You get a very liberal amount of usage time and if you can remain anonymous enough it can provide some great contemplation and insights. — You do not even have to protect your privacy to the extent I do— mainly I do not think it would make a great commonplace journal. Its format is not suited for that. — For a commonplace journal, I used to use a 2010s version of OneNote. I had to buy it from Germany, though, and I think it probably is not sold anymore. I do not trust new, cloud, serviced writing applications. I like having personal backups and data privacy. — I once heard, ‘If all you tell is the Truth, you won’t have to remember a thing.” I do not remember where I heard that. But I ended up living by it, maybe more than I’d like to admit. — I use reminders, ‘vent’ journal, leave myself notes, save documents or charts on my phone, have a calendar, etc. But really the idea of a commonplace is a knowledge catalogue, in my interpretation. It’s obviously more than that as well. Which is why I do not like to put my eggs all in one basket. I have already done that with my self. — If all I tell is the Truth, I won’t have to remember a thing. — I have no need to recite numbers or facts. When I contemplate something, it is either understood or it is not. I am either right or I am wrong. The answers may change or they may not. — I find the process around a commonplace book highly engaging, fun and practical regardless of whether there is actually a commonplace book itself haha.

Which were you?

In order to leave a country and live somewhere else easily and comfortably, people usually have to have at least one of these traits: a) Highly socially adaptable b) A job offer c) Family ties d) Wealthy e) Retired f) Fleeing crisis g) Specialized skills or education h) Government sponsorship or diplomatic status i) Marriage or partnership j) Student status k) Asylum or refugee status l) Investor or entrepreneur visas

@oldhandle I’m not arguing that America is better than Europe. I’m saying leaving out of fear and emotion isn’t a strategic decision. If you think things were bad, the burden is on you to explain why leaving was necessary for you. Otherwise, it was just reacting out of fear, not making a thoughtful decision. — Are you actually looking for a discussion, or just for people to agree with you? If the goal was to debate leaving vs. staying, wouldn’t you be making the case for why leaving was necessary instead of expecting everyone else to justify staying? It seems like you’re looking for validation.

@oldhandle Sarcasm isn’t an argument, and exaggeration isn’t evidence. If you think leaving is the only rational choice, then make the case for it. Otherwise, all you’re proving is that this is just fear and emotions masquerading as strategy.

So standing firm and handling things rationally is ‘cucked,’ but running away at the first sign of trouble isn’t? Interesting logic. Definitionally, leaving a place due to fear or instability is fleeing—I used that word correctly. I never said it makes someone a traitor; that was added by yourself. Yes, moving to another country is a privilege. If you have that privilege but choose to stay— it means you see value in staying. And if you have that privilege and do not understand how it is a privilege that is called being ungrateful. If you also think exercising that privilege to leave is a necessity rather than a choice, you’re just panicking and acting entitled to said panic instead of standing your ground and being strategic about your positioning and actions. If you moved halfway through the Biden administration or feel like you need to move now— that is by definition fleeing. And if that made sense to you, you would’ve made a point instead of dismissing me. — Biden’s economy could be expensive. It also took awhile to recover. But it was nothing like 2008 or other examples. If you make over $34,000 a year you’re in the top 1% of the world. People will always complain, run, justify, dismiss. Nobody wants to sit still and deal with any of it. @oldhandle

@Socrates Running isn’t a strategy, it’s a reaction. Staying where I am is the least risky thing I could do and the most fiscally sound.