Scholar

I never said there is something fundamentally wrong with what you do, I just think it's stupid. Whether or not you are a troll is separate from that. Yes, Leo does behave like a troll often on this forum, I criticize him for that all the time. I think he is often immature and toxic, so for you to think that this is a gotcha is funny to me. If someone comes to a forum to antagonize people so that their "audience" can relish in that to me is troll behavior, and I think what Leo said in that post you quoted applies. You're just here to stirr drama, and you admit to it. You have a difficult time tracking what I am saying, because I am not saying that it's simply what you say that makes you a troll, it's how you attempt to get it across. You could have made the same points you made in a non-inflammatory way, but you choose not to do so. Again, either you are a troll and doing this consciously, or you are still unaware of the dynamic going on. Whether or not you think it's justified to troll is irrelevant to me.

lol, look at my post history I am one of the most critical people of Leo on the forum, but you are just bad faith. You view everything as a confrontation, everything you look at you view through a lense of wanting to debunk it. I was actually good faith to you, because I assumed that you are not a troll. But you just admitted to me that you do know how people will react to it, which as you can see is completely unhelpful. You are either aware of this or not. If you are, you are a troll who is just antagonizing people and wasting your and their time. If you are unaware of it, I refer back to my previous post and recommend to you, that if you want to change anything outside of just stirring drama, to adjust your tone. You can't just say: "I am just providing valid criticism to help the people of this forum, I am not a troll." and then say: "I am completely aware that the way I present my criticism is inflammatory and doesn't change peoples minds."

Like I said, the issue is not the critique itself but how you package it. You basically scoff at Leo and his teachings, and then you come here wondering why everyone is antagonistic towards you. That's just a lack of self-awareness. Leo is pretty resistant to feedback as is, so I don't think your style of communication will find any success with him.

To be fair, you are reacting to a cheeky comment that was meant as a joke as if it was some formal argument put forth for you to examine, that alone can make it easy to perceive you as a troll. But other than that, even if you have valid critiques, the way you bring the across is pretty toxic from what I have seen, which also makes it easier for people to dismiss you entirely.

Very interesting how long it has taken Leo to realize the whole thing about not spoiling it for others, and there not being a need to have anyone do this at all. I feel like that was more of a unravelling of his ego, because from an outsiders perspective it was very transparent why he did certain things in the past, and why he continues to do so. My critique for a long time was that Leo is kind of doing two things at once, one is basically being a psychonaut/conscioussnessnaut and being an explorer and doing the work, and the other is trying to be a teacher and leader. I think that is kind of unhealthy, because these two things are kind of opposed. Teaching takes a lot of dedication, and not only that, because he constantly keeps realizing new things he basically has to constantly adjust and reject his previous teachings, which just confuses students. So he kind of doesn't want to take responsibility for what people do with his teachings but at the same time he still wants them to know about Truth, which obviously leads to problems. IMO Leo should have first done the whole process of self-discovery, put out his discoveries without trying to convince anyone whatsoever (which is the main objective of his videos), and if he then wanted to teach he should have dedicated himself to that properly. Wow he even goes into the whole thing about how he was to explicit with the teachings. @Leo Gura These realizations you have about how you should teach are to me very basic things that you should have understood with a little bit of self-awareness and self-reflection, which to me means that you on a developmental level have something lagging behind, so I would recommend to address that because it should have not taken this long, with this many people pointing it out to you, with your practicing so much meditation and self-awareness work, to figure out. I don't know if you maybe have some psychological condition that limits you in this way (I have the impression you might be somewhat autistic although that is just a feeling), but I think it definitely limits your ability to be a good teacher. The reason why I have this impression that you are "autistic" stems mostly from the few videos I have seen you interact with others, so the interviews mainly. And your general insensitivity in regards to how others feel. You very much remind me of Destiny in this way.

I don't think he can bring himself to do that, his response would be something like "Defend what? There is no "Nahm" and there is no "position".There is only Truth. Love, love, love".

I think Nahm just needs to learn to not get so attached to his teacher role. I think it is lack of awareness actually, that he is unable to see that he has attached himself to a certain mode of operation/perspective. Every single of his posts is written from the same perspective, and maybe that is because he has an identity on this forum that he is he "teacher" guy, so basically a spiritual identity. He does not notice that he is undermining other aspects of reality by doing so.

From what I understand they exploit parasocial relationships, similar to how Cam-Workers (you know what i mean) do. So that is the appeal of it, it's not just entertainment, it has a social aspect to it. I think the bigger creators on onlyfans even hire people to do their DM's for them. And don't forget, it's usually not just OnlyFans, the parasocial relationships go beyond onlyfans, on platforms like twitch for example. Guys get so attached because they are lonely, or have certain sexuals needs. I think for most human sexuality has a big social aspect to it. We value the interactions with other human beings, knowing that there is another experiencer on the other side. That's my take on it atleast, there are probably more dynamics at play. Maybe give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction There is basically a certain psychological phenomena that is somewhat unique to having a relationship with a streamer or similar. It probably is a bit different from cam-workers, but who knows. I guess we would need people in here who use these platforms and have enough self-awareness to report on this phenomena.

That's the Self-help mentality that I do not like, when someone is suicidal, clearly they are not thinking in terms of "good reason". With that logic, any doctor giving bad advice can just say "Well my patient shouldn't have been so stupid and listen to me lol, what does he expect?". The entire issue is that people cannot use their head, and when they do they end up being conspiracy theorists most of the time. They didn't spend their entire life studying philosophy like you did Leo. From what I heard what in the end caused Reckful to jump was that he thought he would get institutionalized again when a friend or something knocked on his door, thinking it was mental health workers, as he made threats to kill himself the days before that. Clearly such an individual is not rational and cannot be held responsible for his actions. Sometimes you do remind me of people like Tony Robbins with your logic and attitudes.

Another discussion, with Destiny, MrGirl and Dr Avi:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag?utm_source=url

You are still doing it. This isn't a debate, this isn't about onus of anything. You failed to conceive of any other possibility outside of him having something to hide for why he avoids open/non-scripted conversation about this. What I am pointing out here is not whether or not Dr K is doing something wrong, or why he is or isn't wrong, what I am doing is pointing our that you are clearly biased. This bias will, like I said, make it difficult for you to see any of this objectively. As long as you are biased, no amount of evidence will convince you. Once you are unbiased you can still come to conclude that Dr K is evil or wrong, but the fact that you could not come up with a simple possibility tells me you are not engaging in this rationally, and therefore there is no point engaging with you rationally. Rational engagement only works if both parties are unbiased. This is why debates fundamentally do not work in convincing people, unless both are good faith and lack bias, atleast enough so they can think and see clearly what is going on.

I say it again, because it is the most important dynamic here: Why were you unable to conceive of a possibility outside of this: You are justifying your bias, my point is your bias is literally making you unable to reason.

Yes, I was assuming that you were making a point outside of just saying "Look there are security aspects to this too!". Well, that doesn't get us anywhere, because the interesting part is how we establish when the security aspect outweighs the individual autonomy. To just say that security aspects are a factor does not really tell us anything about how to evaluate this situation in particular. I did not read all of your posts in this thread so I did not understand your position fully. I perceived your position, similar to the positions of others in this thread, to be dismissive of the truckers and attempting to justify the actions that were taken, and then I provided my reasoning why I think that is unhelpful.

Well, it's understandable that he would respond in a scripted manner considering how serious the allegations are and the fact that everything he says can be used against him in court, his lawyers probably discouraged him from saying anything at all about this. I think the framing of "Who is in the right" is fundamentally wrong, and it is a framing that is encouraged by people like Mr Girl. While Dr K might have acted irresponsibly and made mistakes (that might even justify to take away his license), I think people go a bit far with their bad faith. Just because the guy makes mistake, or has different ethical believes, or even is deluded in some manner, doesn't mean he holds bad intention or consciously goes against "ethics". You want Dr K to be bad, this is why you can't imagine a reason why he would refuse an open conversation about this. Someone who is unbiased will probably come up with a reason in a few seconds (remember, your cognition will only give you answers towards the bias you hold), for example like I said that everything he says, or maybe even refuses to say in a conversation, could be used against him in a serious manner in the future, legally speaking. Or he just doesn't want to have a conversation like this knowing that he is not very confrontational and wouldn't really be able to handle it. There could be many reasons why he does not hae an open conversation, and not all of them entail that he consciously is trying to hide something because he is a genius manipulator. Again, an unbiased person will come to this within seconds. You did not, which is how you know you have a bias here, which if resolved will help you to see things more objectively.

lol, sorry I meant Mr Girl not Dr K That doesn't really justify the backlash and demonization. And the jump from "There are no studies porving ayurveda therefore it's all bullshit", is simply irrational.

I don't think you did so successfully, because abstractions are irrelevant in this discussion, we have to talk about the actual laws in place. Also, I think the article your promoted was in regards to the rights of individuals, so that individuals must be provided with the ability to prevent disease to themselves. There is a reason why we have medical ethics, of which autonomy is viewed as essential. Give this a read: https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/medical-ethics-autonomy/ I feel like sometimes people tend to just throw everything out the window without considering why we have certain things in place. Forcing people to take vaccines might do irreparable damage to society, as it completely undermines trust in both institutions and the medical system for a substantial portion of the population, leading them to be more radicalized and reject current institutions. Faith in institutions is essential to upholding civility and social cohesion. We as a society have completely failed in unifying our perspectives, because we did not take responsibility for the trajectory of the evolution of worldviews. Our childishness is what caused people to be paranoid, and because we have not done anything to address the root issues, I think we can prepare for a future that might be far less stable than we currently think it is. It's not a good idea to just let everyone form their own worldview without giving them the tools to navigate a basically infinite information landscape, as we can see, the tendency for humans is to fall into fear, paranoia, victimhood and fractured identities. Your lack of empathy for these people, which makes you fundamentally blind to the reasons why they are radicalized and fearful in the first place, is actually a far greater problem than the entire pandemic was. That is the root issue. Without resolving this issue, you are playing whack-a-mole, and you'll wonder why more and more moles come popping out of the holes the more you whack them.

I think Mr Girl has handled this in a bit of an immature way, he seems to be very emotionally invested in this rather than approach it from a perspective that I think even he would view as more helpful. There are valid critiques to make but the way he is making them are not really effective or healthy. I'm also seeing other streamers jumping on this and having a kind of typical Stage Orange reaction against Dr K, basically making him out to be a manipulator only out for the money. You can see the mentality of "meditation is bullshit" and "he is promoting pseudescience with ayurveda". It is kind of unfortunate because Dr K was doing a really good job getting people from Orange to Green in some aspects atleast. They view him as exceptionally inauthentic. Just skip through this:

That's precisely my point.

I would say this is a different kind of right than what you quoted in your post. If someone had the right to not get infected, they could sue anyone who infects them, whether it is a flu or any other kind of disease, in the same way you could if someone drove into your car.

Yes, and this needs to change. There are ethical way to achieve progress, and many researchers argue that the high frequency of animal testing is detrimental to the science rather than helpful, especially regulations that require animal testing even if we know the data will be basically useless. But either way, if you think it's okay to use animals as test subjects for the greater good, do you think you can justify this outside of human supremacy? And more importantly, when you say for the sake of humanity, what exactly are you referring to? To me, doing this is the opposite of serving humanity, because to me humanity means to have compassion, mercy and love beyond the restrictions of animalistic desires. This kind of testing and attitude based on survival and fear is what kills our humanity, it makes us beings that instead of deserving the progress we achieve through the torture we inflict on others, are the last ones who should benefit from it. Avoiding and prohibiting the torture of innocent, child-like individuals for the greater good is not difficult.

No of course not, that's not how rights work. You don't have a right not to get cancer.

And this is exactly why the kind of advice given here can lead to extreme harm. Some people are just out of touch with how other people feel and they will not notice when they just push boundaries and make others feel uncomfortable. The attitude of "I have to just push and push until I get to have sex with her!" can very easily lead into the rape-territory, because women tend to want to avoid confrontation. The issue is that people might regret their choice afterwards. When you push someone until they are super horny, they might do things that they would otherwise not want to do, similar to when they are drunk. Instead of being so defensive about this I would recommend to self-reflect and adopt responsibility for possible harm you might cause.

I gave this a quick read and it seems like the backlash against the Aryan Invasion Theory has more to do with Indian Nationalism. https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite I will not download the pdf you provided, maybe find a link to some website that has the pdf.