Natasha Tori Maru

I dunno. I don't think you can ever know someone. You can, at best, have an idea. And be able to predict some behaviours and choices around what you predict. But in the end people will surprise you. They will do things you can never expect. I agree that online interaction is a false sense of intimacy. A compartmentalization and avatar of the human. A simulacrum.

@tsuki you have a very deep understanding of how we allow things to affect us. It's hard for others to hear and reconcile responsibility without falling into the traps of shame and guilt. People conflate responsibilty with blame. Increasing agency without self condemnation is the essential contemplative piece many miss.

Engaging in the myriad logical fallacies people make - especially ones perpetuated via social media; ie false dichotomies, false dilemmas, hasty generalisations, strawmanning, equivocation and red herrings. This could be one of the larger ones that actualized.org is guilty of, and endures to stamp out.

Wealth and status, and the questions surrounding them - can be a proxy for 'Does he have his shit together enough to look after himself, and potentially us + 1 in the event of children?" The question and status, can act as a proxy to broadcast responsibility and maturity. But looked at as a singular metric in total isolation is defective reasoning to come to that conclusion. The whole person needs to be considered.

Do you think this discussion necessitates some form of action, conclusion or acknowledgement? Because if this is the reason for the extensive engagement on your behalf, you might be up for disappointment. Not sure if anyone feels a compulsion for any sort of formality. We can all agree to disagree and nothing can come of it, as one potentiality.

It's like mutton dressed as lamb only between generations X -> Z

I can see what you are pointing to here, but I have to ask - does this claim hold up or is it based on some large assumptions that can act to strengthen flaws in the argument? The assumptions I see (not an exhaustive list) : intelligence protects against cult involvement the person is honestly attempting to learn exposure to multiple sources automatically reduces the risk of undue influence a cult and independent enquiry are mutually exclusive direct experience is a reliable corrective probability of cult-ic attachment is "highly unlikely" - no evidence supplied for this at all leo is not functioning as a central authority and intellectual sophistication protects people from influence None of the above are guaranteed - and again I am just objectively looking at the argument presented. Teaching critical thinking and epistemology doesn't automatically prevent cult-like dynamics. The question is whether those tools are applied consistently, including to the teacher and the community itself.

@Thought Art Heh heh it's okay, I'm a fan. I like em' a bit twisted, touch of the maverick 😈 I fuckup just as much TBH If contrition is shown. And a real attempt to correct behaviour, coupled with receiving critical feedback in a constructive, forward focussed manner - I will always have someone's back. If you're in it to fight and change I got ya. I care less about who a person has been and more about whether they are capable of honest self-correction. I tend to view lack of responsibility, integrity and bigotry as large factors for my own personal low investment and good opinion. The worst is when behaviour does not change but verbal apologies are abundant. Even then, people can remain stubborn for years and then pivot to changing when I least expect it. I am not married to my own judgements. I am pretty comfortable with ambiguity.

@Thought Art *here she comes, slowly, up behind you. Brandishing 4 needles of 100 units of BoNT-A in 2ml of saline to inject precisely into the corona, 1 inch distal to pubo-penile junction & cavernosa (right and left) of your penis* Do you opt out of the algorithm? Same same

The invitation is open to engage with the argument presented, base on receipts. Or you can bring receipts for a new premise. A good case can be argued for the craziest things and respect is due. The trouble is, some users will have an emotional investment and attachment that prevents engaging in an unbiased and unemotional way (not that emotions invalidate an argument, but they can steer us into fallacy). @Thought Art Accepted. You bad, bad boy

I feel safe in the location within Australia I have chosen to live by working very hard and paying for the privilege of said location. In the greater scheme, I do not feel unsafe due to immigration.

By this, are you implying they shot themselves in the foot and made a mistake in an attempt to grab investor cash? If so, this is what I am claiming. It is a sales tactic.

I've always noticed and wanted this, badly. Wishlist

Great! A true edge session @Carl-Richard, @zurew and I are working our way up to gooner status at the current rate

Which just so happens to play into self deception. By categorically dismissing what a cult could be, we discard having to critically assess whether we may be IN a cult or participating in cultish behaviour. Or whether we may actually have been (the horror and intellectual offence!) deceived ourselves. Shutting down open debate is a way to avoid cognitive dissonance.