BlueOak

6 Commentators in total including: Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and Lauren Southern https://www.vox.com/politics/370323/tenet-media-russia-what-happened-tim-pool-dave-rubin-benny-johnson-lauren-southern Though it spreads through the rightwing media outlets, to nobody's surprise. The video sums in up in the first few minutes who they are connected to.

Russian agents, bought and paid for. They are just more open about it now, or we have access to better data about their finances. The Russians have done a good job in the media space, better than people gave them credit for. But China, America, Europe etc do an even better job, as you usually aren't aware who they have paid to say what. It sometimes comes out who the Chinese agents are in England for example: https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59984380 But it isn't common.

The problem with free speech is it isn't free. 1, The platform dictates the speech. Money dictates the platform. 2, He who shouts loudest drowns out others. The internet and communication is designed poorly as a pyramid, as with most of society. 3, Luck and money dictate what is put into the public consciousness and what then becomes largely accepted reality. 4, People don't understand the power of 3. It literally changes your life every second of every day. 5, Skill and expertise is a far greater benefit than a loud voice or a big bank account, thus free speech as an absolute is a detriment to society. 6, I have touched on crisis situations but this applies to all situations with a risk factor. Poor information gets people killed, ruins their financial savings, families, and health. There is a lot of terrible information on social media. I don't mean opinions I disagree with, I mean objectively inaccurate information. 7, Then we can look at all the collective problems absolute free speech encourages, such as the breakdown of social order and cohesion. The polarization of society exists because too much emphasis is given on the individual not the society as a whole. If this were free speech, individuals need to be balanced with collectives in the public discourse. Not at a ratio of thousands to 1 in the information we are given. Because information isn't given relative weights of importance, its often purely egoic in who we like the sound of.

Look to foster communal ethics rather than individual moral adjustments. Which you are moving to in this line of thinking. 1, It'll save you time. 2, You won't get hung up on technicalities. 3, Morality isn't superior or inferior in an absolute sense. Meaning your morals are no more right or better than anyone else's. Instead there will be things you can get others to agree on but that forms the basis of communal ethics and perhaps a social contract. 4, Individuals are the collective - The collective is the individuals. If someone is having trouble understanding this, they either see themselves as purely an individual or purely part of a collective, rather than both, or better yet understanding there is no difference ultimately. If someone approached me and told me how hard their life was. I usually frame the discussion or answer based on resources and allocation. I recount how much houses cost now for young people compared to their income for example, while at the same time empathizing with the person's own life and situation. If you want empathy show it. Not everyone is capable of it, but a lot are when you show it to them.

I must admit I haven't kept up on Brazil or south America as closely as other countries or regions, especially this last year, with all my focus being in Ukraine - Russia, the Middle East , and East Asia too, as well as domestic politics I don't have as much time as I used to, to keep up. I will have to revisit that topic before I answer but I appreciate the adjustment, it makes more sense now.

Depends on the severity of the illness. If people are dying in a day and the infection rate is very high, yes If there is plenty of time for treatment and the risk factor is manageable, then it is manageable. If it's lethal and whoever is coming into contact is dying off, then yes, it needs to be controlled. China has too many people in too little space, and from what I have seen its food standards are not particularly high in terms of cleanliness. I apologize to any Chinese people if that is a poor choice of words, but the markets there do not look clean in my eyes and so disease spreads more easily. China also tends to just hide its problems away and pretend they don't exist to the world, which is the sad reality of some of those choices they make. This is one of those decisions where you have to weigh individual liberties vs the good of the community. There is no correct answer, just what protects the community hopefully balanced by the civil rights upheld by the state, if that state is somewhere I would consider living anyway.

In an uncertain situation where a large number of lives are at risk, the procedure is to control information given to the public, both for their safety and for the people affected. This has always been the policy of governments. Given the way information has developed to be shared so freely and easily I can understand the innate resistance there is in people toward this procedure. The point is we don't know. In a crisis situation often we don't know, and because we didn't know I feel there should have been a stronger lockdown, and that Sweden got it right in protecting their elderly nursing homes above all else, but that is my view, and above is your view. My government's view is: Here is the relevant sub document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance With passages such as: Recognition of an outbreak and initial response Outbreaks may be recognised by UKHSA, local authorities, NHS or public health microbiologists, FSA or service providers. Each organisation has its own procedures for surveillance, detection and control. Immediate contact between these parties is essential as soon as it becomes apparent that an outbreak may exist, so that the parties can share situational awareness, undertake a risk assessment, and agree lead responsibilities, timelines and level of response required. Immediate control measures should be implemented as per relevant guidance, and investigation to clarify the nature of the outbreak should begin within 24 hours of receiving the initial report. The following steps should be undertaken to establish significant facts and inform the decision to declare an outbreak: confirm the validity of the initial information (for example, ascertainment bias, laboratory false positives) consider the tentative diagnosis and whether all cases have the same diagnosis conduct preliminary interviews with cases to gather basic information including any common factors collect relevant clinical and/or environmental specimens form preliminary hypotheses consider the likelihood of a continuing risk to public health carry out an initial risk assessment (see Appendix 6) manage initial communication issues Declaration of an outbreak Locally confined outbreaks will usually be recognised and declared by the CHP or senior health protection practitioner. Where appropriate this will be following consultation with a consultant microbiologist or relevant environmental health officer (EHO) and occasionally the DPH. For more widespread outbreaks, such as those that are national or regional, the outbreak may be recognised by FS, a consultant or senior epidemiologist, national UKHSA disease expert or the FSA. It is possible that a widespread outbreak may be initially recognised as sentinel ‘local’ outbreaks. For local incidents the UKHSA HPT region should inform the DPH and, if required, ICBs. For standard and enhanced incidents (Appendix 3) relevant external bodies such as NHS England should be notified. NHS England will provide oversight and support to ensure that alerts from UKHSA are actioned. Convening an outbreak control team Following the recognition and declaration of an outbreak, a decision regarding the need and urgency to convene an OCT is required. This decision should be guided by a risk assessment. The rapid establishment of an OCT is particularly appropriate if an outbreak is characterised by: immediate or continuing significant risk to the health of the population one or more cases of serious communicable disease a large number of cases cases identified over a large geographical area suggesting a dispersed source significant public, political or reputational interest If no formal OCT is convened, it is likely it will still be necessary to take public health actions and liaise with partners and stakeholders. When a decision has been made not to declare an outbreak, the responsible CHP should review the situation at appropriate intervals and be prepared to declare an outbreak if required. This may involve consulting with the other parties to assist with ongoing surveillance. End quote. This is a portion of that subdocument, and there is a lot more to read. Are you beginning to see how information is vetted for accuracy and delivered in an effective and useful form to the public during a crisis situation? It isn't some guy heard something and then decided to tell everyone to do it. Its a 1000 experts in their field working together for the good of the public. To say there is no evidence that these methods save lives after millennia of disease outbreaks is absurd. It's to stop it spreading. It's to stop people dying so they can have the best chance to get through it. It's to track where the disease is. It's to evacuate places if they need to be evacuated. To track how it came about and if it's likely to mutate. It's to limit panic and damage to the economy or people's day-to-day lives, to stop large-scale public unrest or the breakdown of social order etc..

An example of a billionaire believing he's above the law. Brazil is aligning authoritarian and with BRICS so the ban on free speech doesn't surprise me procedurally, but it also does, because X somewhat aligns with Brazil's trajectory.

Very creative.

Several Millennia of recorded human history in dealing with crises. Countless thousands of virus and disease outbreaks before it. Most dangerous situations the public are exposed to. If you give me a more specific question I'll answer it with a more specific answer. Is the question, why does controlling the information given to the public in a crisis or even dangerous situation save lives? I can also focus it specifically on disease or virus outbreaks if that's more useful.

Sadly not. Development, culture, environment, experiences, etc. While it's true Ethics often refers to a community, communities can be just a few hundred people. You'll always waste your time arguing ethics with individuals. Unless they are showing some openness to listening to you. Their ethics are their ethics, and yours are yours, so the premise is going to be different depending on who is surrounding them to reinforce these ethics or which communities they are a part of. I just appeal directly to their security, safety, and financial motivations; usually because its far more effective, and only when they ask. Example: I've formulated vegan arguments when people ask me why I am a vegan, that tell them directly why they are worse off financially because we have so much land diverted to cows and sheep, in a county where nobody can afford land or rates. Nobody has anything much to say apart from nodding their head.

Very necessary with the amount of online ego pumping going on in Gen Z, its worse than 80's materialism in many aspects. Their identities are paper thin for many, which 'may' encourage a jump in consciousness after the identity collapses. I should say any ID based on image requiring feedback from another (part of you) is prone to some form of collapse.

The fundamental disagreement lies in the fact that many people have embraced a fascist conspiracy theory that downplays the seriousness of the pandemic. Because they didn't, and some still don't, see it as a crisis, they believe the censorship wasn't justified. From that perspective, I can understand their view. I could point to the death toll, but they would likely dismiss it as part of the conspiracy, perpetuating an endless cycle of circular reasoning looking at the (self) only. This illustrates a core issue with fascism: the use of conspiracy to selectively accept or reject facts. While everyone does this to some extent, conspiracy thinking leads us into delusional mindsets, where we actively rewrite reality to fit our own (self) agendas, strictly ignoring any feedback from the world that contradicts our beliefs. This feedback can usually keep us grounded if we are not surrounded by people sharing the conspiratorial mindset! Both of America's political parties align with capitalism and authoritarianism, and as long as this continues, fascist themes like conspiracy will keep resurfacing in politics. The Republicans are currently deeper into these fantasy narratives, though a small shift away from them seems to be happening now.

Good. Saved a lot of lives. People didn't act quickly enough, I lost an uncle, but I am glad that is the only person I lost. Panic had to be contained in a crisis situation. Uncertainty on fundamentals like health, food, water, security, and power have to regulated on a standard day, let alone when a crisis is occurring. Understanding this, I like the boundaries to be tested and my bias is to hear all views, but when large amounts of people are dying and nobody knows what is occurring, information has to be tight and to the point. Wars, Diseases, Natural disasters etc all operate under different rules. People prioritizing free speech in a crisis is irresponsible and dangerous. Now we can talk about how people overuse security to spy and monitor the public to insane degrees and censor things like the words 'political compass' on YouTube, I'm all for that discussion, but pick your battles because this one isn't helpful.

Fascist Theme and Principles: Conspiracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Further Reading: Purchasable Reseach Study: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1600910X.2023.2252192 Quote: Recent decades have seen are surgence in the use of conspiracy theories by populist and autocratic political figures. This has sat alongside a renewed interest in using insights from Frankfurt School thinkers to open critical perspectives on fascist uses of conspiracy theories. This paper builds on resurgent interest in the work of Franz Neumann, and directs attention to the political manipulation of alienation and anxiety. Building on Neumann’s insistence that a falsely concrete theory of history is in operation wherever conspiracy theories resonate politically, this paper argues for the neglected centrality of conspiracy thinking in nearly all instances of fascist politics. Conspiracy theories are a structural feature of fascism – a hypothesis that invites empirical testing to see if it might better fit the overall pattern. Neumann’s political critical theory also returns our attention to the possibility of an antifascist critical theory with the political at the centre of its concerns, opening lines of inquiry that complement Adorno’s insights into domination of the administered world and the culture industry. Free Article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/202201/fascism-thrives-misinformation Quote: Fascists use misinformation about history, identity, leaders, conspiracies, and destiny to gain and retain power. Democracy requires replacing misinformation by real information by using critical thinking, motivational interviewing, and political action. ---- Now my ego is curious: Why is it a surprise to people that a country of millions has a large and well-established hierarchy of power that is shared by more than five people? Would it be nice if we elected more of that hierarchy yes and no. It would lead to larger instability in the transitions but reflect society more. (All its downsides and upsides) Would it be nice if money was removed from power, yes but how your life functioned from the moment you got up in the morning to the moment you slept would reflect society more, all its extremes good and bad. For this to be the case, large-scale resistance to larger changes, and more frequent changes would need to be addressed. No more moaning about the day-to-day details of your life, because you'll get larger shifts to deal with. I question how economies would function, but they do seem to change faster now, even if the people in them don't adapt as fast as they do.

Word games or altering meanings of words are not very helpful because you live on a planet where the majority decides how to communicate. Tomorrow she might not reject you, or tomorrow you'll speak to five girls and find you had fun and didn't care about today. Where I agree with everyone above, is that you decide what rejection means to you. Also, I wouldn't have assumed she rejected a romantic advance with a hand gesture about her exam? If you'd have got into a conversation, and then asked her out directly, then she'd have said no, that would be a rejection. Then it's on to the next girl. Today she might have just really not wanted to talk about the exam or was busy. I've found I can see very quickly if most women are interested in me, they usually decide fairly fast, so don't waste time and just ask.

I am not sure if I can do philosophical, just practical. As i've been in that place many times, more so in my earlier years, I'll share a few thoughts. I'll start with why someone might choose it and hopefully do so tactfully so the mods don't have to close this. As I've commented I've experienced emotional pain to the level of a broken rib, as if it were all over the body. I've had more physical pain than a broken rib, so I know more pain exists but if you were to want a scale. If you imagine the pain of breaking a rib, and then have that like a wave over you for a day, a week, or more. I am sure perhaps others have been in worse shape than me; I'm still here after all. So now picture that broken rib is either being avoided, shamed, run from, fought against, whatever and it's generating a lot of chaos, and resistance in your life. Sometimes it's all you can think about, multiple states come up that cause you to suffer most of the day, and this is for someone who is functioning, let alone someone who is bed or chair-bound. If you don't reach acceptance in life: Does the gamble become more attractive? Yes, it does. After the fallout of decades of that, or years of it it takes a toll on the body/mind/life, does that help you understand? I've saved this next bit so it can be ignored depending on experiences: Part of me wants to comment on reincarnation, past lives, and cycles that repeat. There is no guarantee that you will pick a better outcome next time if you've got unresolved issues in your life this time. As you are everything, the pain, suffering, denial, shame etc, that's still you, and running away from it won't help live in (not just with but in) that part of yourself. That requires an understanding or experience of past lives to accept, and also a lot of courage to face and heal and accept. It also benefits from a method such as the completion process, and preferably understanding that the emotional pain is causing physical symptoms on the body both directly or indirectly.

And win. Very relatable. This reflection of you that you've generated wants to say that it sounds like an incredible journey and shake your hand. Good For-tune.

I didn't watch the video as I have little time these days. These groups started off with teenagers, they had a lot of investment and passion about their beliefs in a concentrated echo chamber. A few of the masses got older, got money, and used it.

Have you put into Chat GPT. Taking into account: Your interests. Things that inspire you. Your hates. Be as specific as you can with each. Then ask it for 20 business ideas based on the above information. I did this in one message to it. Then the following in different messages: Afterwards ask it to list these 20 ideas in order of the costs required to start them up. Then when you have a few, ask it for some product ideas for these businesses you've picked etc. Ask it for ideas how to source these items or their materials cheaper. That's how I got onto my current business idea, I improved it myself afterward but it was a good catalyst.

Welcome. Yes, my experiences. I could have put that together more concisely, I was tired when I wrote that I don't use psychedelics. I have no need of them. As a metaphor: If I were to wet a piece of paper through meditation or merely observe what I am showing myself day to day, then soaking the paper in water through psychedelics is not going to show me much more, it'll still be showing me what I need to see. They can help show the most fundamental truths because they are showing things such as: that there is nothing in reality directly but the experience itself. Experience is reality, and as I've said you not only represent your experience to yourself but directly cause it. I understand people know more than me about substances and can probably use them productively, this is just a personal choice to avoid them. When you understand all of reality you experience is you. Then you'll understand some of the reflections you are seeing of yourself better, and be in a more allowing/accepting state, which is a far more harmonious state to live most of life in. Spiral dynamics, for me, is the logical side of human development, whereas one of the various emotional scale models would be the emotional one. Though given the nature of emotions, its hard to find a specific emotional scale I can logically point to that I find most useful over the others. Google emotional scale or conscious scale for a reference. Who is to say what is true? You. I can't pull any strings in your mind, this is your reality you are giving meaning to. You can have any reaction you like to these words, and it'll be your reaction that you put there. Everything is a biased decision or distinction because you are deciding it all. The moment you write 'I think', well that's you. I'd like to go back to infinite love, there is truly nothing in this world like it. I feel this is a step there, but from the logical side of the paradigm, the emotional one I am actually quite far down on. Though I do reflect acceptance more often now which is nice.

What would be three preferred ways for you to design or structure a stage turquoise reincarnation in your next life, if that was your main goal?

@Nivsch Sure. Everything you experience is you. You generate all of it. Not on a 'self' 1 to 1 logical I do this so I get this, or I want this so I get this. All the people, all the experiences—everything is you. This means you lose the self more and realise infinity more. Realising this may be different for you, as you have indicated in your last post to me. Steps before total realisation might be: 1) Your thoughts/decisions/actions create the future. Creating a pattern of events. (This pattern, like you, is infinite) 2) Everything is subjective. 3) The above two lines mean that you define and create your experience. 4) You react to your own decisions and emotions that you have decided or are having. 5) This means you represent reality entirely to yourself. 6) There is no reality but what you put there. All there is, is this experience. 7) Your emotions, actions, and decisions will shape you. And you are all that you experience. 8) Your emotions will change the actual reality that you generate, because it's you. 9) The more you are the infinite and accept it, not an illusionary self. Then the more you are infinity. You can see it play out in discussions, like here. I am reasoning partially from the self and partially from the infinite. You can see some posters using the absolute or infinite, and some reasoning more from the self. 10) I would say allowance and acceptance here is what I've been working on for several years, allowance and acceptance of myself was probably a lifelong process. ('Self' being both this personality and the wider reality that is me) Obviously, I am repeating things slightly here for clarification, but that's an example of everything folding into itself over time, where the details of how don't matter so much. A simple example would be a task you have to concentrate on at first, and then over time you find a simpler pattern of doing it. Of course, these steps are incomplete because I am still here talking to you ;). Well I am not 'here', because there is no 'here'. There's an experience.

It wasn't the quality of life I was talking about, just the result. I had a pretty poor first 25-35 years of this one, Why? Absolute Answer: | | Transition | Put something in here | Self Answer: Finishing a pattern. Though, as I've said, more of me wants to make this the last life than wants to do another one. Self-experience is realisation yes. The integration of the external to become the internal is a full step. That's how we realize we are whole. Well put. Thanks all.

To achieve the objective of the thread without going through 10 more reincarnations.