WeCome1

JEEEEEEESUS IS LAWD, these are the golden bytes of the internet I come here for! Oh my god, I just can't. Cannot. Unable to can...

@r0ckyreed , what is the source of your knowledge about Buddhist (or any other kind of) monasticism? Do you know any monks personally, and they have told you how their monastic life works and what it's about? Or have you watched/read some sources where the monastic life is described? Or are you simply repeating stereotypical things you heard somewhere?..

I know, right? Raising awareness by the river...

There is difference between "by" and "while".

@davecraw The wording of this statement is vague, it can be interpreted in three completely different ways: 1) Only this/my experience exists; there is nothing beyond this "bubble of perception". A.k.a. solipsism that is trending here lately. 2) Only the experience itself exists; the appearance is the ultimate reality, it is amechanic, there is nothing hidden underneath. 3) Only the experience itself exists; there is no one experiencing it, it is "self-experienced". A.k.a. non-duality. Also, it kind of goes hand-in-hand with option 2), but I put it separately just in case. So, before we can even discuss anything, could you please clarify which one did you have in mind when you opened the topic? 1, 2, 3, 2+3 or perhaps something else entirely that I didn't think of?

More character development in this one song than in the whole of MCU.

Is it a bit solipsistic in here - or is it just me?.. In the end, what's important is the imaginary friends we made along the way!

I'm sorry, I really didn't want to... but I have to : "A Growing Earth?"

Not what this is about. Most of RU troops are now concentrated in the south-east (Priazovye) which is strategically the most important direction of the coming UA counter-offensive. So what UA will be doing now is provocations in the under-protected regions which cannot be ignored by Putin for political/prestige reasons (exactly like this one) to divert attention and some of the troops. It's pure tactics, Zaluzhny is a genius.

This doesn't get emphasized nearly enough. Moreover, if "it's about time to throw the stick into the fire" - it isn't yet. The fact that the stick has burnt is seen retrospectively.

Well, you ask, So, one way to go about it would be to pick apart his argument and see if it breaks somewhere - either logically, or factually. Beau argues that 1) There is such thing as objectivity, and, moreover, there are things which any reasonable person would agree are objectively bad. He does not define "bad", but I suppose he wouldn't argue much if we understand it to mean "practical", "what works". So far so good. 2) There are 5 concepts/values that are so good, necessary and practical to have for a civilized society, that attacking them on purpose is "objectively bad". Those 5 concepts are: 1) Ideological flexibility, Open-mindedness, 2) Non-authoritarianism (he does not define it precisely, so here is a potential way to attack his argument), 3) The Rule of Law (everyone must be equal before the law), 4) Free Speech (and government not intervening with it), and 5) Separation of State from Church/Faith (government shall not regulate or discriminate based on faith/religion/spirituality). Fair enough. I mean, one could argue against the "absoluteness" of those 5 concepts: cases can be made against all 5 in times of war (see what Ukraine is doing now, for example), but they are clearly superior to their absence/alternatives in a civilized and politically stable society. 3) Only one party (Republican, I'm assuming - but he does not state it explicitly in this video) has built their platform on denying all 5 of those values and arguing for their opposites: 1) Bigotry, 2) Authoritarianism, 3) Unequal representation before law, 4) Intervening with free speech and 5) Discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. To "build their platform" (as opposed to "tangentially mentions") is a strong formulation that warrants concrete (and multiple!) examples. So, someone who understands what the core republican message - written in some official documents, not shouted from tribunes or tweeted by Trump! - could perhaps provide those examples, for all 5 values. This would be some strong evidence in support of Beau's claims. Although the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, of course - but he must make his point based on at least some evidence, so shouldn't be that hard to find for someone familiar with the topic? 4) Not both parties deserve equal treatment, since only one of them supports "civilized" values, while the other aims to erode the very fabric of civilization. Practically speaking, if that is indeed true - then yes. However, this whole claim reeks of bias and strawman. Again, I don't know jack about the topic - but once part 3) is clear, we can judge part 4) better. So yeah. Any takers? P.S. Overall, a good argument should provide a thesis, its logical explanation, and evidence. Beau's argument provides no evidence and leaves the burden of proof on us. Therefore, I would argue that it is less of an argument and more of a slogan.

You begin to sound like Razard. Maybe time to take a break?..

If we leave out metaphysics and stick to standard dictionary definitions, then it looks like illusion is incorrect perception or interpretation (error at input level), and delusion is more of an incorrect understanding (error at processing level); you can be deluded even with correct input data. But of course they overlap a lot in human language we use daily.

Do republicans indeed build their platform around policies which can unambiguously be interpreted as authoritarianism, bigotry, suppressing freedom of speech etc? Are those things really at the core of their platform, and not some tangential stuff, as is often the case because politics is the art of compromise? Or maybe that is something radical trumpists are proposing, and not republicans at large?.. Genuinely curious, as a non-american. Can someone explain?

Chop wood, carry water. Problem?

I mean that all the actual new information that his posts communicate in a month can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Yet he chooses to repeat it over and over, with faulty argumentation, irrelevant examples, confused logic and tons of irrelevant bs, which results in walls of text. Couple of paragraphs divided by a mile of text he produces equals near zero information per word.

It's not so much about his message, as it is about his behavior. The guy is a textbook flooder: he creates between 2 and 5 new topics every day, and replies to many more; signal to noise ratio in those messages tends to zero, as is his effort to use any semblance of valid argumentation; he also regularly breaks the rules of the forum. All of the above "pollutes the epistemic commons" of the forum, as Daniel Schmachtenberger would say. In addition to that, any interaction with him he interprets as validation; which is unfortunate for us and unhealthy for him.

We don't peg individuals (or countries, or other relatively complex holons) - we peg ideas that can be formulated in a relatively atomic way. Like, markets and atheism are clearly Orange, and ideas like compassion, inclusivity, or New Age - are clearly Green.

Count me in!

Conservative = Ying Liberal = Yang Wisdom = Tai Chi

That is a valid point.

Remember this ancient ritual? People coming together and singing, playing, jamming and dancing not for commercial or vanity reasons - but to honor significant moments of their lives, remember the stories of the past, or simply for the joy of uniting in music? Religous songs, reggae jams, buskers, heartwarming live sessions, drunk people singing in a pub, folk songs, rap freestyles - anything goes, let's keep it diverse, like the United Colors of Benetton and celebrate what the world has to offer. Verified amateur porn, music edition thread - go! I'll get it started:

Strongly disagree. The first channel kind of reminds me of those forex technical analysis videos where folks draw arbitrary lines on stock charts to make predictions. The info on this channel appears to be factually correct and timely, but doesn't provide any kind of big strategic picture; and just observing tactical maneuvers and how Vagner troops advanced for another 50 meters today and took a bus stop is a fun spectator sport, but of little value. The second channel is simply a textbook case of mediocre journalism. The guy obviously lacks the cultural context; his analysis of the big picture is, again, pretty shallow; has obvious biases (some of his takes made me wonder if he is on RT payroll, but naaaah); never mind the clickbaity titles. In general, there is this issue with Western journalism on the topic of the RU/UA war which one should keep in mind: the cultural context. I've said it before, and will repeat again. Russian/Soviet mentality; what RU/UA opinion leaders said, how and when they said it, in what context, and what was in fact implied; how Russian power structures interact between themselves this particular week - all of that is 10x more important than missile strikes, troop movements or which flag is raised over which commie block in Bakhmut today. And no Western youtuber even remotely has the capacity to process all that. Even the top tier press like FT I've seen struggle with that sometimes. The other thing that is common to a lot of YouTube analytics (this time, in the West and in RU/UA alike) is the inability to see the strategic big picture. Like, really, it is completely worthless to speak about tactical maneuvers out of the context of G7, China, India, the Grain Deal, schedules of Lendlease to Ukraine, the analysis of previous similar tactical maneuvers in this war and a thousand other factors. So, if you really, like really want quality analytics on the subject, I suggest checking these two guys out. Both are, obviously, in Russian, so you will have to read the auto-translated captions; I've checked, they are good enough, not much info gets lost. Майкл Наки / Michael Nake. Provides brilliant, timely, relevant and contextual analysis of all the hot war-related topics. Often invites top experts to provide professional commentary, as well as some Ukrainian government advisors (but it's a bit tricky with those, since all their communications are obviously strategic, not sincere). Also, importantly, he has teamed up with Руслан Левиев / Ruslan Leviev from Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), which is one of the top OSINT analytics teams in the world today; Ruslan provides on Michael's channel a daily overview of the situation on the front, which is miles ahead of the two channels suggested above. Higly, highly recommended; if I had to pick one source of information on the topic of RU/UA war, this would be it, no contest. Иван Яковина / Ivan Yakovina. An independent Ukrainian observer that has recently blown up to 1M subscribers, for a very good reason. He is based in Kiev and has an obvious pro-UA bias. However, he has an exceptional track record of making realistic long-term predictions based on strategic analysis. He is also very quick with his commentary on breaking news. Helluva guy.

Can relate. Just the other day I was sitting in my car, and the weirdest thing happened: a Taylor Swift song started playing in my head. And the radio was OFF!