Rafael Thundercat

Society if Fakery and No Empathy no God are interesting to make a meta analysis. Reading both together and reflecting on the paradoxes between both. I am still in process of doing it. Using AI do built the argument, but recommend people here to contemplate and question personally. I mean, the writing is great, but still one can see some paradoxes.

Ironicaly this is a good Definition of the Undefined Nature of Everything.

Getting Annoyed with dogs barking help nothing in stop dogs barking. And if you complain that dogs are barking, now you are also barking, with more grammar but still barking, or Yaping.

" A bigoted Spirit denies its Unity with all the things it has demonized. An open Spirit sees that it is One with all things. The bigotry of science is just a recycling of the bigotry of religion, tribalism, and racism, but at a more subtle level. That bigotry never disappeared, it just evolved into science. Did you really think that bigotry would disappear after you realized religion is stupid? Of course not. Bigotry is a much deeper problem than religion. Of course scientific bigotry exists." Today I was listening with a friend a brasilian intelectual who do deep research on racism,sexism,classism. And the term stereotype came up. And them I linked with Bigotry and remembered that nature is energy efficient. So we all know the amount of energy we spend in self-reflection, and trying to unravel our bias constantly. It came to me that to be a bigot is easier, I need to be otherwise we would not have this among us. This part bellow I used Claude Racism The category (race) is highly visible and fast to process — skin color, features register in milliseconds, faster than most other social cues. That perceptual speed makes racial stereotyping especially "cheap" to deploy compared to slower-to-detect categories like religion or class background. Historically, racist paradigms also came pre-loaded with institutional scaffolding (segregation, colonial hierarchies, media tropes) — so the individual doesn't even have to build the stereotype themselves; it's inherited fully formed, which is even less effortful than constructing one from scratch. Dismantling it requires not just individuating a person you meet, but consciously working against a schema reinforced by decades of media, law, and inherited narrative — which is why anti-racist self-work tends to require sustained, structural learning, not a single insight. Sexism Gender categorization is even faster and more automatic than race in most cognitive-bias research — people sort by gender almost instantly and rarely question the category itself. Sexist heuristics often get an extra energy-saving boost because they're wrapped in "common sense" or pseudo-biological framing ("that's just how men/women are"), which feels like an observation rather than a bias, so it doesn't even trigger the self-reflection alarm. That's what makes it sticky in people who'd readily disavow other prejudices — the schema is camouflaged as description rather than judgment. Undoing it requires noticing the invisible baseline (e.g., "assertive man" vs. "bossy woman" — same behavior, different schema-triggered label). Classism Class is less visually instant than race or gender, so it leans more on secondary cues — accent, clothing, vocabulary, neighborhood, job title — which the brain still processes fast, but classism carries an additional psychological payoff: it lets people justify hierarchy as earned ("they didn't work hard enough") rather than structural. This is a particularly efficient shortcut because it resolves a potentially guilt-inducing question (why do some people have less?) with a low-effort just-world narrative, protecting the perceiver's sense that the system — and their own position in it — is fair. Dismantling classism therefore requires not just correcting a perception of a person, but revising a belief about the fairness of the whole system, which is a bigger identity/worldview cost than correcting a single stereotype. The common thread In all three, the "energy saved" isn't just perceptual (fast categorization) — it's also moral labor avoided: not having to sit with complexity, structural guilt, or the discomfort of revising a story about who deserves what. That's why surface-level awareness ("I know stereotypes are bad") is cheap and common, while the deeper work — noticing your own automatic reactions in real time, tracing them to inherited paradigms, and tolerating the discomfort of updating — is rare and effortful.

This one here is actualized

to scrammble your mind a bit 😂

Different nomeclature same Mystery, still sense making and the True Nature of it not realized.

Soul

You guy may need to interview Dan Koe. His view of things are not all there is but his content brings hard truths about value creation. https://www.instagram.com/p/DdwcN_xmx3h/?stkn=MXcwbXBpZzk2ZXN6Yw==

Here is a woman that teach woman to integrate the inner masculine and start creating structure and value. Of course this is one voice, but for me when I listen one voice I get to understand how other minds think about value creation ,self sabotage etc.. Man need to understand that women can abstract, but many live lifes where they get what they see in front of them, so imagine you find a woman like this with this levels of understanding. Do you really think you can bullshit her into believe you are a value provider when you are not? No, not even the girl who was scammed on the Miami post in my last sharing was able to resist the perception that her life would get better by getting involved with the Las Vegas Pimp. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdZLKwztzdL/?stkn=MXNvMXV6c3JnbW56Nw== We all have intrinsic value by existing, but conflate that into being valued in a capitalistic society is basically to be blind to the truth of survival.

When woman become traped by the perception of high value. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ddj7hBbDTj4/?stkn=bTh5YWtwdTJ4eWlk Not a excuse for not adding true value with ethics and integrity but to see that value in the eyes of some woman can be relative. If they are in a vulnerable state they can fall prey for scammers.

Actualized Quotes #753 https://share.google/cCJZ2QVYfJgqCFKnp Scientist will try to destroy the career of any other scientist that try to go againt the conformity. To save time for some viewers,let me just say that the whole video have some stuff that Leo already pointed towards the scientific community. The guy rants about and against Materialism. He did Ayahuasca, I can sense in his way of speaking ( excited) like the first times I did Ayahuasca, because after many experiences one may lose the preacher vibes and just accept mystical states as something sobrenatural and still natural. Ah he just sound extra excited because I am listening at 2X velocity 😂

Just released yesterday. I know the guy have bad fame, but still O will try to listen as a study case.

@Leo Gura I like the Notion of Bigot Spirit. And also, there may be no human alive with no level of bigotry. Some more stubborn that others but everyone still bigoting a lot. Me included. "Bigotry is a much deeper problem than religion" Is this a feature of the specie? If came to be there must be precedents in evolution. 😂 the etimology if the word itself have originns in God.. This is what a search gave me : Bigotry stems from an evolutionary tendency to favor one's own group combined with learned social behaviors, while the word itself dates back to 12th-century French The Atlantic. Here is a breakdown of where bigotry comes from, both as a concept and a word. Etymological Origin of the Word Old French roots: The term "bigot" appeared in 12th-century France. Its exact origin remains uncertain. The Norman insult: Scholars believe the French used bigot as a mock nickname for Normans. The Normans frequently used the English oath "bi God" (by God). Religious hypocrisy: By the 1590s in English, a bigot meant a religious hypocrite or a sanctimonious person. Broader meaning: People began applying the word to non-religious opinions and intolerance in the 1680s.

So dont date low-cosncious woman.