Emerald

I'll have to agree to disagree. Most edible plants are super delicious in my opinion. And you can make a huge variety of dishes with them with really interesting and complex flavors that have a balance of carbs, fats, and proteins. And curry is just one amazing dish among many others. I haven't eaten meat for like 8 years or so for ethical reasons and I don't eat dairy or eggs either. But meat tastes pretty good... as do dairy and eggs. So, I don't have anything against the flavors and enjoyed them before I went Vegan. But meat, dairy, and eggs don't taste so good that it would be satisfying to eat for every meal forever. It sounds like a really boring diet from a texture and flavor palette perspective. The umami flavor is pretty bland without herbs and spices (aka plants) to make it interesting. Also, the only supplement that vegans need to take is b-12, as that comes from the bacteria that animals ingest when they're eating food that's got dirt on it. And human beings don't eat plants with dirt on them, so we don't get that nutrient. But we don't need to take it daily. While someone on the carnivore diet would need to supplement daily for Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, and Manganese as those nutrients are only in minimal amounts in meat and dairy. Not to mention that you'd have literally zero fiber. You'd also have zero carbs... which are the body's preferred fuel source.

I wouldn't be too certain. I think it will be close but that Harris will win the electoral college. But I also think that Trump could very well steal the election this time around, because he has lots of election deniers in place in swing state polling locations to withhold certifying the vote. And he also has JD Vance instead of Mike Pence who would certify the fraudulent electors... as this is why Trump picked him as a running mate in the first place. So, I fear that Kamala won't be able to win in a way that's too big to steal... and that it may be stolen. Trump is unpopular, that's true. And far-right thinking is a minority viewpoint. But there are so many advantages towards the right wing that's baked into the cake, that Democrats always have to win big in the popular vote to actually win.

Definitely!

I'm going to guess that it would be something vaguely insulting like a child's insult... or on the borderline of being a dig at his appearance, temperament, or element of his views. Like we had Sleepy Joe, Little Marco, Crooked Hilary, Lyin' Ted, Mini Mike Bloomberg, and Low Energy Jeb. So, it would probably be something really inane like "Confused Leo" or "Crazy Leo" or "Wacky Leo" or "Loony Leo" to take a dig at the complexity of his perspectives but to frame them as non-sensical.

Think about it this way... a Vegan diet only limits you from eating dairy, eggs, and meat... which is only like 8 foods that you CAN'T eat on the Vegan diet, while the other 1000+ are fair game. And you can still eat all the Vegan replacements for the 8 foods that you can't eat. But with the carnivore diet, literally all you're eating is meat. And that means there's only like 5 foods you CAN eat on the carnivore diet... chicken, beef, pork, fish, and shellfish.

Side-note: That's an adorable cat.

No. But I have noticed that straight guys have a disadvantage when it comes to recognizing their own attractiveness and what a woman would be attracted to in them... specifically because a lot of straight guys have fears about recognizing what's attractive about a man, in case it means they're gay. And there's also taboos around a man being too Feminine. In contrast, women tend to know what's attractive about women, because most women can and do appreciate feminine beauty. And even the straightest of straight women can recognize and appreciate an attractive woman and know what a man finds attractive about her. And she will know why a man responds with attraction to herself as well, and she can emphasize those qualities for greater effect because she can put herself in the straight man's shoes. But most straight men don't put themselves in women's shoes because of social taboos. And they don't let themselves recognize and meditate on masculine attractiveness. And they don't sense what a woman would find attractive about a man beyond utilitarian things like money, protection, etc... that make sense to them logically. They tend to just memorize a biology lesson or incorporate Social Darwinism as the rationale for why women are attracted to men. To many straight men, the idea that a man could be the object of desire is foreign and abstract to them. It isn't a felt sense, just an intellectual knowing. And so, many straight men don't actually recognize what's attractive about them. And they just try out a bunch of formulaic stuff that's tried and tested without any intuitive sense about how a woman really feels.

It is insane. But most people are xenophobic and racist to some degree or another. Like 80% of people are unknowingly Fascists in waiting for a demagogue to light the spark and weaponize them to cleanse all the "others" from the land. And that's an important thing to keep in mind, lest we have our own unconscious biases exploited and weaponized. It might sound extreme, but no one is exempt from becoming a Fascist if the political climate is conducive to Fascism. And the more that EVERYONE is aware of that, the less likely we are to fall into the trap of Fascism. Most people, just don't like to think of themselves this way because most people are ashamed of it or afraid of social rejection to admit it to themselves. And Trump knows this and often campaigns in a way that pushes the 'Fascist activation button" in society because it drums up his support base who don't understand why they like it when he's racist. That said, I think that his "Haitians are eating dogs" comment won't hit with most people because it's too blatant. But if he were a bit more subtle and gave himself some plausible deniability, I think a lot of people would resonate with it and that it would scratch peoples Fascist itch.

Those other 20%ish percent are just moderate Republicans, independents, moderates, and low information voters that have some degree of prejudice... usually unconscious prejudice. So, they will overlook Donald Trump's xenophobic/racist campaigning because they prefer to vote Republican... or (in 2016) because they liked his populist rhetoric about getting rid of NAFTA and bringing back manufacturing jobs. But the reality is that like 80% of people are pretty racist and xenophobic. But most of those don't really realize it because they don't like the idea of being racist and xenophobic. They don't identify with it, and they don't want to come across that way. So, they aren't going to be attracted to right wing echo chambers that let their racist freak flags fly as that would reveal a part of themselves that they don't like. But they will be open to a president who is racist. They will overlook it. And secretly (even to themselves) they will feel comforted by a racist leader because there is a repressed part of them that is racist. And seeing a leader that is openly racist makes them feel related to, and it alleviates the shame they feel... because those parts would be seen as evil in society. And people who have these unconscious biases feel a lot of shame. So, anything that normalizes racism will feel like mass forgiveness and relief. I have one person that I know who has always been a really accepting person and who taught me to be accepting of all people no matter what. And in her hometown, she was one of the only people who was willing to make friends with the only black family in town (in the 60s). And she got a lot of hate for it too. And she has been sympathetic to the Palestinian plight since at least the 90s... before most people were woke to the problem. And she's always been pretty progressive-minded. But the moment that Donald Trump came on the scene and was talking about "We're going to drain the swamp", she saw in him a kind of Ross Perot 2.0 who is an outsider who's "too rich to corrupt"... and who's going to get rid of Nafta and bring back the manufacturing jobs.... she was sold. And now she has all sorts of racist/xenophobic beliefs because she sees Donald Trump as a leader and an inspiration and she has developed all sorts of double-think to frame Donald Trump's racism as not racist at all. So, she holds here racist beliefs more consciously now... only she has come to see those things as not racist at all. And she gets really upset if people think Donald Trump is racist, and she believes that people who accuse Donald Trump of racism are the REAL racists. And the second he got elected in 2016, she immediately got on board for his Muslim ban and the idea of giving Muslims special IDs and rounding them up and detaining them "until we know what's going on". So, I saw a very accepting person who wasn't even conservative go from 0 to Fascist in one day... only revealing it to me upon the election of Donald Trump. And it made me realize how MOST people are susceptible to Fascism... regardless of political affiliation. People are already soaked in the kerosene of their own unconscious, conscious, and semi-conscious biases... and all they need is one demagogue in power to light the match with some Fascist rhetoric to open up the floodgates to their lesser devils. And Fascism spreads quickly to anybody who isn't exercising a great deal of awareness of their own racist Shadows. Those who are in Right-Wing echo chambers are only like 25% of the population... but the thought leaders in those spaces are always working towards organizing to wake up the rest of the 80% of people who are susceptible to Fascist thinking to their deeper-seated repressed fear/hate impulses through propagating lies and propaganda.

"The question is how much are the undocumented workers being subsidized by the government?" An undocumented worker is someone who (of their own accord) jumps the border and enters the country illegally OR someone who (of their own accord) flies in legally and overstays their Visa. And the government doesn't subsidize undocumented workers and will deport them if they tried to apply for benefits. If the government is flying in these immigrants, they are 100% documented and are likely asylum seekers that are allowed by law to be here. And asylum seekers are probably eligible for government benefits because they are entering the country under vulnerable circumstances that are recognized under law as such. Also, Haitians in Springfield definitely aren't eating pets. That's just a lie made up by a Neo-Nazi group called Bloodpure to create animosity towards Haitian immigrants.

What do you mean by subsidized? As someone who has known many people who are/were undocumented, they aren't eligible to receive government benefits. The only exception is for children who are undocumented being able to go to school. And trust me... no undocumented immigrant wants to be on the radar of the government. That's why the immigrant crime rate is lower than that for natural born citizens. Immigrants (especially undocumented ones) want to lay as low as possible. So, they would be very unlikely to apply for such things, even if they were theoretically eligible to.

I'm very certain it wasn't calculated because he said it in a frenzy after Kamala triggered him about his rallies. So, he was floudering to bring the topic back to immigration... which is what his strongest polling issue is. But because he was really upset because of the quip about his rallies, he ended up in an uncontrolled rant where he was throwing all the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.... and took it completely off the rails. But even all of that was calculated, it wasn't a good move. And that's because most people will rightly view that talking point as too fringy and crazy. And even if they do see some big undeniable issue with immigration in Springfield (which doesn't seem evident to me), it could cause people to look the other way because normies want to be normal... and will avoid things that are fringy. And in the hypothetical situation where there's some undeniably huge issue with immigration in Springfield (which again, doesn't seem evident to me), people might go into denial about it to avoid sounding like Donald Trump did during the debate. Either way, it makes him seem unhinged, silly, and gullible... and isn't a good move. And then he said for his source that "I heard it on television" which gave him the vibe of a senile Fox News grandpa. And that isn't a good look either.

It definitely is exploitative. The American economy as it stands requires exploitation for it to continue running because of the way that the system is set up. And if you look to all the ways that America worsens the economies of other nations (through various pieces of legislation and through regime change wars) this enables America to ensure an influx of immigrants to work as a cheap labor force... and to get foreign workers in foreign nations to work for pennies on the dollar. That's the back lobby of Capitalism.... which requires exploitation of immigrants, foreign workers, and working class Americans to run as it does. That's why it's wiser to look to the issues with the system as opposed to blaming immigrants. But those who benefit the most from the system (the owners of private industries) are counting divide and conquer tactics to exploit the prejudice of working class Americans against immigrants and foreigners... as this prevents them from unifying and organizing together to challenge the powers that be and strike for better wages.

One distinguishing characteristic (though this doesn't totally negate the possibility of prejudice) is if someone has genuinely lost their job or is dealing with employment issues due to the influx of immigrants... or if they have friends and family members who have. Like if a person is a landscaper working in a border state, and they are forced to lower their prices significantly to compete with undocumented immigrants whose precarious standing within the country puts them in a position where they're working for a much lower wage than industry standard. It makes sense that people who are directly impacted in a negative way by illegal immigration would care about the issue. That said, most undocumented immigrants are taking menial jobs that Americans don't want. And what will indicate that this person isn't operating from a place of prejudice is that they place the blame where it belongs... which is with the system itself... and to some extent with the people who hire undocumented workers for exploitative wages. But if someone is placing the blame where it really belongs, it's with those who maintain the system... the government in combination with private industry. If they didn't want immigrants here, they wouldn't be here. But we require illegal immigrants to come into the country to work as a cheap labor force so that the economy keeps running... and so that private industry can save money on wages.

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of subtler prejudice to be exploited in the general population... even for those who aren't drawn to these right wing echo chambers. And veiled scare-mongering about immigration can work for Republican politicians to get more votes from the general populace as long as the anti-immigrant sentiment it isn't too blatant. The thing is, most people genuinely don't like to think about themselves as racist or xenophobic, even if they are to some degree. So, if there's a Republican politician who's couching their anti-immigration sentiment from a non-hatred based rationale... this won't scare off normies who happen to have unconscious biases against immigrants. And they will feel comfortable voting for that politician because "They're not racist, they're just concerned about the cartels." Or "They're not xenophobic. It's just that every functioning country needs a strong border. Otherwise immigrants will take jobs from Americans, and we won't have enough resources." And the normie Republican voter with unconscious biases against immigrants and some genuine practical concerns about immigration will feel comfortable voting for this kind of politician that couches their anti-immigrant sentiment in dog-whistles and less extreme rationales. But if a politician is clear and blatant about the xenophobia and racism like they are in right-wing echo chambers (which is what Trump mistakenly parroted in the debate), it will scare normie Republicans and Centrists off who have milder, less-conscious biases. They particularly don't like blatant racists and xenophobes because it holds a mirror up to their own Shadows. Probably only about 25% of people (probably less) actually resonate with intensely blatantly racist/xenophobic perspectives... and only people with that level of neurosis and grievance are in right-wing echo chambers.

My thoughts are that it makes sense. Most people don't have the same kinds of grievances and worries. So they aren't attracted to these spaces.

I think you're reading intelligent strategy into what is a knee-jerk emotional response on the part of Donald Trump when Kamala baited him about his rallies. Trump is clearly in a lot of right wing echo chambers as those are the contexts that are the most sycophantic to him. And he has a fragile ego, and so he tends to surround himself in echo chambers full of yes-men. And he also has tended more and more over the years to gravitate towards far-right online spaces, which has caused him to not have his finger on the pulse of normie America. And he tends to put a lot of stock into the perspectives that arise in these far-right online spaces because those are the most validating voices to him. So, when he brought up the "immigrants are eating your dogs" thing, it's because he exists in right wing echo chambers where the fake-news story of the week was about Haitian immigrants eating cats and geese. And because that was the story of the week in that echo-chamber, and he has lost sight of the fact that he's in an echo-chamber because of the near-ubiquitous validation he gets. And he has convinced himself that normies are just as tuned in to the stories around immigrants eating pets. But of course, he doesn't really care about this. He didn't even get the fake news story right because he said it was dogs that immigrants were eating. He's just trying to throw red meat to the electorate... because he assumes that most of the electorate is keyed into this story of immigrants eating pets. He just doesn't realized that it's unhinged Facebook grandpa behavior because he has to believe that EVERYONE adores him. And so, the echo chambers where people adore him, get seen as EVERYONE in his eyes for the sake of bolstering and maintaining his ego.

Exactly

The problem with this is that it falsely equalizes something that is not equal... which creates a distortion in the eyes of viewers. Trump said that blue states have legal infanticide, and that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets. Those are egregious ridiculous lies that would be malpractice for a debate moderator to not call out. It's just that Kamala didn't tell any egregious ridiculous lies. So, the moderators didn't check her. They also were consistent, and only called out his egregious ridiculous lies and let the other 5000 milder lies slide unchecked. So, the moderators were actually pretty even-handed as the boundary-line for fact-checking was consistent for both candidates throughout the debate. If anything, it was slightly more in Trump's favor because they always let him go over. Yet again... that wasn't so much in his favor. And perhaps they gave him the advantage of time to give him more rope to hang himself by. In that case, it could be a stealthy 4-d chess level of bias against Trump that has the plausible deniability of looking like a bias against Harris. But overall, they were really decent moderators.

Yes, that's true. But even beyond the persona level, it causes us to split ourselves into two categories... good/desirable parts and bad/undesirable parts. And this expresses itself as the personas we use to hide parts of ourselves. And we try to annihilate the supposedly bad/undesirable parts. And this creates shame and fragmentation and division... within ourselves and in relation to other people and from the universe at large.

I recommend Shadow Work as this is about loving and embracing the parts of yourself that you have pushed away and rejected. And there are lots of practices for this. One is to practice dropping judgment by accepting both halves of all polarities. For example, if someone has the idea that to be passive is good and to be aggressive is bad... that means they will begin rejecting any part of themselves they deem as aggressive. But if they instead recognized these as neutral qualities that can be express in positive and negative ways, they can accept both sides of the polarity. But it's also important to accept ourselves unconditionally, even if we were to have the worst expressions of the traits.

Of course Trump voters won't budge in relation to the debate. But the debate is for reaching undecided voters and normies. And for that, Kamala came off as normal and articulate... and Trump came across as unhinged and uncharismatic. So, this debate was a big loss for Trump as it will ONLY be accepted and energizing to people who are already really into him. It will scare away moderates, independents, and undecided voters.

Thank you for the compliment!

Thank you for checking out the series. And yes, judgment is commonly the root of "evil" actions.... because we begin to view ourselves as good guys fighting the bad guys. And we dehumanize the bad guys. But this also opens up the possibility that we are bad/invalid because we're viewing the world that way.

Thank you!