Bobby_2021

A random guess.

As far as people who do get sucked into these niche ideologies like red pill, incel etc most of it has to do with a lack of self awareness. They simply cannot look at themselves doing this shit. Also a big part of the problem is also that it gets tied to your identity and you get mired into group think. This is why it's not a good idea to declare yourself belonging to any ideology, publicly. If you want to be a member of such groups do so in private and leave it when you exhausted the karma. You would feel no obligation to defend your position forever.

Are you suffering more now than you used to? I assume yes.

The relationships are a bit complicated. Being low in IQ means that you are likely to earn less money over the lifetime. This is true of Individuals and communities. On the other hand, if you are a high IQ individual being born in a poor country, then you cannot generate much wealth over your lifetime, unless you migrate to a developed country. IQ needs societal infrastructure to be nurtured and it takes high IQ people to build that infrastructure. The relationship is not straightforward. Happiness does correlate with wealth. The more wealth you have the happier you feel. IQ is a good predictor of wealth, but it is not perfect. IF you want to explore the relationship between IQ and happiness alone, then I would say that your happiness increases from 100-125. From 125 to above and more, you are more likely to be miserable and suffer with each point increase in IQ. So, the relationship is not linear. IQ also increases your capacity to suffer, beyond a point. So, after that point, which is roughly around 125-130, you will suffer a lot. Because society is not built to accommodate you. You will feel left out and forgotten. Society is made for midwits. Dumb and depressed usually do not go hand in hand. Although all these statements are a massive generalization. The circumstances you are in have to do with it a lot. High IQ people are more likely to be depressed. And they come from rich countries. There is a sweet spot when it comes to IQ & wealth. You will be severely miserable if you are out of that zone, both in IQ and wealth. Average IQ of a philosophy major is 130. So yeah, your ability to do philosophy or spirituality is dependent on your IQ. Is the relationship perfect? no. But it tends to be the case more often than not. To be interested in abstract stuff like philosophy and spirituality is a high IQ trait.

Whichever is more.😄

These "resources" are people who have lives just like us. They also have families, jobs and children. Enough of making men spill blood just to sell western weapons. You guys have profited enough. Give up the land to Russia. Stop the bloodshed. Learn from the past. No more stupid policy making.

My suffering is as high as ever nowadays. There seems to be no stopping it. This is effectively suffering. Is it a valuable life to you, if you are suffering your whole life, but creating light out of it. I think so yes, Suffering that makes you think, especially about suffering, usually creates vastly more suffering. I absolutely hate romanticizing suffering like a lot of people do. I just do not see the point. But if you have to live with it, perhaps it is not a bad idea to romanticize it. You have to live with it anyway.

The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. Russian foreign minister tried to talk them out of this less than 2-3 months before the invasion. https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/ "Open Door"

I was talking about the policy of America. Of course, China does not have any ambiguity. America also honors a one China policy. But it does not tell you the government who is controlling the whole of China, agreeing in principle with both China and Taiwan. Genius if you ask me. The United States, deepening its ties with Taiwan might end up creating a mess like in Ukraine. At this point, it seems like taking over Taiwan is an impossibility.

Putin being a romantic lover of the lost glory of the USSR is a western creation. Creating such an empire is too unsustainable. Putin is not dumb enough to not see it. For former Soviet Republics having, pro-Russian governments, absolutely yes. That is the ideal case for Putin. But them being neutral was good enough. What do you mean a "democratic coup". It was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected minister. A big bias from the west is assuming anyone who isn't pro-western must be anti-democratic. They also run the same propaganda in India. Modi must be anti-democratic, even though he came to power from winning elections alone. In reality, the west wants power, not democracy. Putin wanted a seamless free flow of trade and harmony between the former soviet republics and a pro-western president would block this. The encroachment of NATO is the problem, not per say of Ukraine joining NATO. Of course, in the long run, it would end up in Ukraine joining NATO. Nah Putin has won the strategic war. Ukraine as a country is doomed. NATO would never dare to touch Russia for threats of nuclear escalation, and you do not want to do that. Listen, you cannot isolate and pretend to not take into account the interest of a country as big as Russia. IF you corner them, they know to fight back real hard. Also, what Putin really hates is a western sphere of influence which is slowly creeping over Ukraine, of which getting NATO membership is the final ritual. It is not going to change anything even if Ukraine was not planning on joining NATO. Russia's plan is to avoid that exact scenario and it seems he did well to succeed in it. Anyways the United States was indeed expecting Ukraine to join NATO in the name of FREEDOM. in NOV 2021 https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/ The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. There were plenty of executives in the CIA that warned of this outcome. The video goes into the details. It is even more impressive when Mearsheimer literally predicted the invasion of Ukraine right from 2015. That is an impressive prediction. He saw it coming. So, you might want to take him more seriously.

Not living in accordance with your genetics can be seriously detrimental to your well being. The higher your intelligence, the more your capacity for suffering. The most intelligent people in the world suffer the most. This is taking immense responsibility on yourself. You cannot half ass life like anyone.

Or work hard and build character to be worthy of existence again. And change the existence (external reality) itself. I think DaVinci had immense shame associated with living a wretched existence. That's they he was always on his toes to live life intentionally in accordance with his highest values. Unconscious shame can be a problem because you don't have any means to reverse it, even though you could have possibly worked on it. There should be some reason for being invalid. If you can work on it, then do work on it. If you can't work on it, then it's not a good idea to shame yourself on it. Feeling shame for things you can't change is a serious problem. In that scenario, I agree with you that the correct path of action is self love. But if you can work on yourself, then just get it done. That's the best love you can do to yourself given your circumstances. Context matters. The fundamental problem is ignorance and unconsciousness.

I feel strong emotions of shame for not having to lived upto masculine ideals. I work on the shame by getting those things done. The reason why men are such pussies is that they don't have enough shame at all. That's why they live like total losers and other men kept them in check by shaming them, not that it's particularly healthy. There is no abstract way to work on shame & men are direct and straightforward in the way they deal with reality. When men say they want something, they really want that. Not getting that is what results in shame. And treating shame is like treating the symptom instead of cause.

The best way to understand the matter is to compare it with a scenario where the united states did succeed with correct policy. Taiwan - China. Taiwan was always under the threats of being annexed by China. If Taiwan pursued aggressive "freedom" movement then they would have been a bloody war already. They refused to have autonomy with most of the world not even recognizing Taiwan as an independent state capable of governing itself. Even the united states honors the one China policy, at least in theory. It's a policy of strategic ambiguity and maintenance of status quo. Don't go into favouring either the west or the east while maintaining relationships with both. This is exactly what Putin wanted of Ukraine. Not to mention that Putin wasn't even explicitly interested in annexing Ukraine from the beginning. You can sell weapons as much as you want. Do trade as much as you want. But don't give away your allegiance to either side. NATO was perhaps not going to get Ukraine into NATO in the shortwhile. But they definitely wanted to get them in the long term. Putin didn't like it.

@BlueOak @martins name

But they still get advanced weapons from the US. And if a conventional war breaks out, it will be a full-blown nuclear war like we never saw before. NATO membership is nuclear protection without having developed nukes on your own. Tensions between the countries are normal thing to have, believe it or not. Getting NATO into the scenario turns the matter into a potential nuclear escalation which we absolutely cannot tolerate at any cost. So, it wasn't about the security? Like Bush said. You cannot play both sides. Should I take what the western leader says at face value or not?

International agreements, even if it is written in paper as no value as long as the parties involved do not intend to honor it. Gorbachev did not have enough negotiating power, at the time and he was a pretty chill dude and good friend with Clinton. It was a time when a great war ended and no one was under threat from any enemy. For him, verbal promise was enough. He went to back to Russia believing that he did get a promise to not expand NATO East. That is what he thought in his mind. But none of this change the fact that he was lied to. He did not care. But that might not have been the attitudes of people that came after him, like Putin and Bush, who were more conservative and authoritarian and waged wars accross the globe. Ukraine not having nukes is what got them invaded today. America will not allow Ukraine to have nukes. But there could be American controlled nukes in Ukraine. When America says Ukraine should pursue freedom, what means is the Ukraine should have freedom to follow American way of life. The y should not have the freedom to follow the Russian way of life. They favor democracy when the democratically elected candidate favors the west. There is a reason why the people of Taiwan prefer to maintain the status quo as opposed to complete autonomy. Even the United States do not recognize Taiwan as a state. They need to appear neutral so as not provoke the big guy. That is what Putin also wanted: Ukraine should be neutral, if not pro Russian. This was a reasonable thing to ask for. Just do not give membership to Ukraine to anything European. This is too much to ask for from the west, apparently. I do not have a scenario to give you. What I am saying is that do not need one, to be frank. US certainly did not need one to go on with invasion of Iraq. Why would you hold Russia to a different standard? This is what I do not get. You think Western security interests are normal and Russian security interests are evil. The point is to stop NATO from ever having a sliver of chance to take advantage of Ukraine. So I the scenario that I am trying to give you is the scenario they do not want to see happening.

India is mostly neutral, officially. People have all sorts of biases and attachments which they scream out on social media. But the government is going with a neutral stance overall.

It is e-books over physical ones, all day every day.

@BlueOak I agree that there could be multiple reasons for wars. But I would like to see the same kind of scrutiny for the rhetoric when western leaders say it. The west also wants to secure global trade for themselves, but they do it in the name of democracy and freedom, so people do not take it seriously. I want both of them to be judged on the same standards.

I like this video even though it paints a simplistic picture somewhat. 1. Gorbachev was sort of manipulated or led to believe, to put it nicely, that the NATO would not expand eastwards. The western leaders including the leadership of NATO knew that they were not going to keep their promise. This would have made more sense once you find that Clinton pushed for the expansion despite republicans opposing it, after discussing it with the executives from the Lockheed Martin and Boeing. They were well aware that NATO expansion was in the cards but did not reveal that to Gorbachev. So, it is totally normal for Russia to feel betrayed. The narrator of the video knows a lot of stuff that he is intentionally hiding. There was no ambiguity or lack of clarity into what the Gorbachev heard. The western leader lied so that they could get over with the reunification with Germany. 2. The narrator admits that the Russian invasion of Georgia was indeed due to the opening the membership to NATO. So he is aware that Putin could use invasion as a response to NATO membership invitation to countries. Putin did not trust the west enough to bank on their promise of not letting Ukraine NATO. That is if Ukraine had no plans to join NATO at all. But Putin did not perceive it like that at all. Of course, I am not justifying the Ukraine war as if anybody doing anything is giving the license to kill and invade sovereign countries. Putin is the only one at fault for starting this bloody war. Nothing could justify it. It is just that NATO should be blamed for creating the environment that they know would definitely result in an invasion. 3. IF NATO expansion is not the cause of the war, then what is the cause of the war for real? It could be geopolitical advantages, but it again seems unlikely that Putin is willing to pay such a huge price for natural resources.

I can give you many scenarios if you have the empathy to relate to them. 1. Cuban Missile Crisis The United States was scared the shit out their pants when the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, in response to the US deploying missiles in Turkey and Italy. US had to negotiate with the USSR to get the missiles out of Cuba. You could easily argue that the United States were far advanced than USSR being a nuclear power with deterrent capabilities. This is a scenario of the of "Soviet expansion" being threatening to the US. Two nuclear power getting closer leading to rising tensions risking a nuclear war is not a good idea. 2. Iraq war. The bush administration was scared for the peace and security of the United States and they set out to Iraq to seek the destruction of their WMDs. There was not even a proof that there were any such weapons at all. But the United States was threatened, and they invaded. Even America had nukes, so why did they invade? If the US can be threatened with imaginary WMDs halfway across the globe, and then invade them, why do you think that Russia's fear of Ukraine joining NATO and hosting nuclear weapons is delusional? Note that by the time there are nuclear weapons in the Ukraine, it is too late. The world might go into a full-blown nuclear war. So, Putin did the preemptive strike no not let NATO ever come there in the first place. As far as Russia is concerned, NATO is the biggest nuclear power and sharing border with them will not lead to anything good. Russians will also have aspirations of security just like the US. They might be forced to invade and make bad decisions in lieu of watching the slow demise Infront of their eyes. When Clinton says he is expanding NATO to promote peace and stability in Europe, you take that at face value. But when Putin says he invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion, you hesitate to believe him. Why?

Notice how you can't answer the question directly. But the Israeli constitution makes it very clear. So you don't have to. Honestly we are good. I don't intend to change your mind. You are entitled to defend Israel because it's your state.

@Nivsch Hey man it's a straightforward question. Do you think Jewish settlements are a national value?