bebotalk

imho, inconsistency doesn't have to have a negative connotation. the two imho aren't the same.

Modifying a rule is normal. That's not hypocrisy. One can say theft is wrong but support it in the case of a starving person.

They have a point. Cannabis can be unhealthy in some circumstances, though it's not a gateway drug. even still, pople shou;d have the choice to use it or not.

Not everywhere in the USA has legalised weed, or let alone decriminalised it. As I understand, your federal government still outlaws it. So it's not really that much more open on weed. Just your point is inaccurate, and it's a false "dunk" on Europe.

Why lament colonialism? This is common amongst people from countries that were once ruled by European powers. Yes, it had bad effects that linger to this day. But then humans conquer. Unfortunately, humans are aggressive and we see this in the world right now. If one looks at the histories of various ex-European colonies, they were often conquered by other powers. India was ruled by the Mughals and the British essentially took over from them. The Zulus expanded in eastern South Africa, before the Boer Wars and the unification of the Boer Republics and the British Cape Colony into South Africa. Native Americans must have had wars and conflicts long before Columbus or Vespucci got there. And in Europe itself, there has been endless conquest. There is one going on right now, in Ukraine. Colonialism was just a bigger version of what we've seen throughout human history, and sadly appears to be human nature. Take the history of France. It was founded in large part by conquest. Caesar invaded the Gauls. Then when Rome fell, the Franks came in, leading to Charlemagne conquering the Saxons and other peoples. Then duchies under the French king such as the Normans conquered England, which led to future English kings seizing large parts of France. They were pushed out in the Hundred Years War, and then France over centuries fought Britain, Spain, and others for global dominance. Germany was founded in its backyard, essentially, after they lost the Franco-Prussian War, and whilst it held off the Germans in WWI it lost out to the Nazis in WW2. This isn't to justify colonialism and the many barbaric acts that happened. But it seems to me just an extension of what happened for centuries and millennia prior to the voyages of Prince Henry and Vasco da Gama.

But your USA has banned abortion in half of its states. And isn't that more progressive on drugs as it stands. And also bans prostitution in most of the country, and said states that have outlawed abortion want to also curb trans rights. Regressive?

Well even centre-right parties can be progressive. Not all people in a party are alike. Some GOP peole in the USA are pro-abortion for instance. Is there a point?

I've been taught that we're owed nothing and that nobody has to be nice, though people can be nice. We can't control others' reactions or behaviours. I myself am black, and most black people or others from marginalised groups would be on guard for any real bigotry. So it fits really, IMHO. It's foolish to expect people to always be welcoming in any space.

You make a lot of fair points. Though I can fully accept that others can and would judge me on appearance. I may not like it, but I accept it as a reality.

interesting. Herr Scholz is a lot more progressive than Merkel was.

The Nordic model doesn't work. Though I believe it should be legal.

there are different ways of being, Mr. spiritual. it's not something that fazes the masses, though it probably does based on what your guru tells you. The rationale behind smiling at people is recognising them. and yes, it is leaving alone, since it's inherently connected. if one notices another smiling, then it can be for a reason, and why shouldn't a person interpret that action? not all engagements have to be physical, as you suggest. You're making many illogical connections and assumptions. And yes, everybdy has freedom. but others will have the freedom to interpret your facial expressions in which way they choose. why is your freedom of greater value than others? As you're that wise, you don't think that people might think "what's he smiling at?" or "oh he's happy" if they notice one smiling? It seems you cannot handle a different perspective. many adults do, but then possibly spiritualists are the exception.

Well, I don't certainly love nor like you. I'm not bothered if you don't either, though you tend to expect others to welcome you no matter what, so it's something that can be exploited all the same. You genuinely believe human beings don't have a variety of emotions. This was a truth long before the advent of modern psychology. You think some edgelord opinion you made up is a fact for all. You reckon you can arbitrarily select who posts what and in what tone. Like you obviously favour the Indian kids posting the biggest BS out since they're of your culture and/or faith. and you assume everybody else goes along with your whims and subjective views also. it's also comically hypocritical when you speak about wisdom and being smart. it's a near sociopathic arrogance stated there. For a wise man, as you often claim, you have very weak impulse control, and thus cannot ignore things you dislike which even don't breach the stated forum rules but your own inner whims/values.

Yes, it is cringe imho. strangers are random people, who warrant a basic level of respect of course but they aren't friends. I expect, for one, to be left alone in public and don't need people I don't know to warm to me to make me feel happy. I'm also not spiritual, but if being such means ignoring rudimentary interpersonal skills and assuming there is one way to view life, then it's not for me. I don't see either perspective as better, though I don't concur with those saying one should smile at strangers. spiritualists do tend to hate other perspectives, and have sociopathic views/conduct.

i just think smiling at strangers is cringe. i don't see why people need to, though if others want to, so be it. we're all different. provided people aren't causing harm to others in public, then i don't see any requirement to smile at strangers. i personally don't need random people i don't know to smile at me, or make me feel warmer. that's my own responsibility. it's further cringe to suggest that others will judge people for not smiling. it's oddly invasive and intrusive and needless to boot. If you're going to the shops to buy groceries then just go and get your weekly shop. you shouldn't imho worry about people in your vicinity not smiling or not. your own life, family, spouse, kids, job, etc. are more important, or should be to you. we've all said our opinions. that's that then.

spiritualists are very presumptive. assuming i must care about their views or vids. and they take offence at such refusal, since they hate interpersonal freedom. or assume that they can influence others at all times. when they refuse to think "oh they're not interested, let me move on!" and will most likely act the same way to a hustler in the street without realising it's the same principle at hand. or they don't wish to realise it.

winner and loser are relative terms. and i mean that. people who are successful can and do have major flaws.

If he's a Christian, well that's on him. The Lord Himself said we're all sinners.

You're free to do as you please. I didn't say otherwise. But given how spiritualists interpret rudimentary English, they'd think that's what i WAS saying.

a guru-derived view isn't the only acceptable view. nor is mine.

This won't work as well for newer channels imho.

for a new channel, it takes time to build views, and it would get swamped out by others. More exposure on other platforms means more potential and actual views. It doesn't hurt to post a vid in a Facebook group or make a related X account to post vids on.

it's cringe to assume others care about one person's happiness, or that one "needs" to display it.

it's not me who is manipulating. I don't engage with others in that way.

Many despots rose to power on popular revolutions, or otherwise winning the masses over. I'd argue that appealing to the many is key in any political system. Mao made the Chinese population realise communism was the answer and the PRC has existed ever since. It's not something that's strictly related to democracy. China still is ruled by the Communist Party since its ensured that the Chinese people see it as the only true way for China. I don't know much about Indonesian politics, but it seems he is just using technology to appeal to voters.