Salvijus

Okay sorry I should've put more thought into my comment. Here's a more thoughtful response. Your heart is capable of relating harmoniously with every individual from every background, of every age and idealogy. But your egoic prejudices will block and narrow your loving heart only to those that suit your egoic agenda. The protection of these prejudices are not in your best interest if you wish to evolve as a human being. This is not to say that you should not have preferences tho. It's okay to desire to be in a more pleasent atmosphere than not. I would base who I want to be in company with simply by their presence, energy and wholesomeness rather than their beliefs. Their presence is what truly matters, everything else is secondary. Besides you will never find another person with exactly the same opinions as yours. So it would be wise to learn to hold different views without ostracizing and demonizing one another. That I feel is wisdom.

This is good. But you observe their level of truthfulness and judge them according to what metrics? And how do you know that you don't have blind spots where your perception is corrupted with biases?

Just say you don't know what those metrics are, haha. Nobody is going to judge you.

My claim was that there is no objective metric by which we can measure who's more truthful. Your claim was that there is. That's why I'm asking you to present the metrics lol.

I would argue it was a truthful observation rather than a judgment. If my comment came out of some sort of spite, than I apologize but I still believe the observation was correct.

Exactly. And how will you know that your own perception is not bias?

Nobody is forcing you to date them. So what's the problem?

So by what measure will you determine which person is more truthful?

@Elliott ok

Cheeky insertion right there. I didn't say that lol. If it bothers you that much, I renounce my initial comment about the left and what they stand for. 🙏

This is poetry

Aww, I appreciate you being fair haha. That was a wholesome moment. But see, these facts can't be trusted even if the source is not trustworthy. And how is one to determine the trustworthiness of a source? I don't have an answer to that. But I'm okay when people arrive at their own conclusions of what they believe are trustworthy information and what is not without trying to push on them that MY conclusion is the best. And everyone with a different view is monster.

To be of service is a natural destination of every human being. It's not something you have to worry about. Simply concentrate on following your life purpose(highest passion) and your destiny will take you where you belong and where you will be of most good to others.

Ok, it was just a hunch.

Are you saying there is no way to know?

How will you know one person is more truthful than the other? On what measure?

Yea, but it's a personal discernment thing. It's not an objective thing that everyone can agree upon.

That's good. And whatever conclusion you arrive at using your own discernment and intelligence is okay. That's how all people operate. We should be able to respect people's level of discernment and not try to mud them if it's different than others.

According to who? How do we know this "who" is actually reliable?

Ideally it would be best to do the political analysis all by yourself. But that is very time consuming, you would have to live and breathe politics every day. You'd have to be involved in that life fully to understand the full picture. I believe we have no choice but to rely on other people's analysis of the situation. And we all do this. We choose who's analysis to listen to based on who we believe are trustworthy. My personal judgement is that Vivek is the most trustworthy person so I chose to give weight to his analysis the most. It's my personal judgement. Everyone is going to have a different judgement on this. Why can't we just appreciate the differences in our views on this matter. Why someone who has a different view should be demonized and ostracized? That's the point I'm trying to make.

The way I interpreted is that he chose to ignore me because my high opinion of Vivek was too much for him. I believe that constitutes as a low capacity for acceptance of different opinions. I actually don't know what left stands for so maybe I made a mistake while making the second statement. I had the impression they brag themselves for acceptence and tolerance of different groups. If I'm wrong about that, then I take it back.

Interesting how people have such low capacity to accept people with a different worldview. Yet left likes to brag how tolerant and all inclusive they are. But nevermind. Tcare

Maybe it's not a complete answer but the longer you can observe the situation impartially without forming an opinion, the more refined, crystallized, deeper, sharper your perception will become into the reality of what is true and what is false. I believe this discernment can penetrate any subject if it remains uncluttered with egoic biases for a sufficient amount of time. The only problem is that those who have blind spots of biases are not aware of those blind spots. That's why they are called blind spots to begin with. And those blind biases can corrupt your perception of the situation. The only antidote against that I would say is constant spiritual practice and purification of the mind.

I wouldn't care if I'm wrong. I would just accept it. Big deal. Learn and grow. However, I'm feeling really good right now, ngl.

I first identify the people that I feel are sincere, qualified to comment and are agents of the light. Then I listen to their analysis of the situation and that's about it. It's always very positive pro trump and anti kamala analysis. Vivek Ramaswamy is one example, his glory is blinding me. He's a reincarnation of some Indian sage 100%. Like that I came to the conclusion that what's happening right now is indeed a golden age for humanity.