Emerald

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,416

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Emerald

  1. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    4 hours ago, PenguinPablo said:

    and the fact that Trump i spewing this nonsense in a fucking presidential debate is insane...

    bringing up the immigration thing over and over again.

    like what is your voter demographic...

    xenophobes and racists?

    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. 

  2. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    21 hours ago, Hardkill said:

    I agree with all that.

    So, if only about a quarter of Americans are in those right-wing echo chambers, then what about the other twenty something percent of Americans who aren't in those right-wing echo chambers but still voted for Trump for in 2016 and 2020?

    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.

  3. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    14 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

    According to some reports I have read, the immigrants are being flown there by the government and are given subsidies.   How else do they get there? And if that is not true can you provide me with a real article written by an investigative journalist that actually explains the situation and what is happening.  Keep in mind that conspiracy theorists fill in the vacuum provided by lack of real information.  

    I have some limited direct experience of Haitians.  Several years ago a group of Haitian workers were kicked out of Brazil for some reason and they all showed up in Tijuana to apply for asylum in the United States.  Many of them ended up settling in Mexico.  They were well dressed and all using smartphones.  They were workers who had skills and obviously weren't the type who would eat somebody's pets.   I wonder exactly who the Hatians are in Springfield and if they are of the same class.  

    "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.

  4. Posted · Edited by Emerald

    1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

    The question is how much are the undocumented workers being subsidized by the government?  An American local can’t compete with a subsidized undocumented worker.  He wouldn’t be able to survive.  This is profitable for the factory owner (who may be a democrat or a republican).  There is also the issue of corruption.  Where is the money coming from and where is it going.  My guess is that RFK would have focused on this area since he has a long verified history of being pro worker and pro union.

    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. 

  5. Posted

    43 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    I'm not sure if it would be a good move or not, but it seems like it could be. No?

    If Springfield becomes a talking point from here on out for them, that will confirm it for me.

    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.

  6. Posted

    37 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

    Isn't it a form of exploitation to want to make immigrants work at cheap Labor rates just for the sake of economy. I think the immigrants should deserve the same labor rates as the native work force. 

    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. 

  7. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

    How to separate or distinguish a xenophobic from someone who has a genuine concern about mass immigration affecting jobs and changing demographics? 

    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.

  8. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

    Yeah, so if that's the case, then that begs the question as to how our fractured media environment country has caused our country to become more divided than ever before.

    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.

  10. Posted

    22 hours ago, Joshe said:

    I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid.

    Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well. 

    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.

  12. Posted

    10 hours ago, questionreality said:

    To fact check one candidate and not the other (even though Trump said a lot more inaccurate things than Kamala did) is clearly not right.

    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.

  13. Posted

    12 hours ago, AION said:

    I meditated on this topic and I found out that shame makes us wear personas (psychological clothes). To be shameless is to undress the personas others have forced us to wear. Or we ourselves made us wear. 
     

    adam-and-eve.jpg

    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.

  14. Posted

    17 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

    What do you recommend to heal shame?

    Books? Practices?

    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.

  15. Posted

    18 hours ago, aurum said:

    Not for the average Trump voter.

    They love that stuff.

    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.

  17. Posted

    7 hours ago, AION said:

    I just watched all the videos in the series. As far as I understand judgement is the root of all evil. 

    One must stop judging ourselves and just be unconditionally ourselves aka shameless. 

    It kind of makes sense. I know the good kind of fuck boy who is liked by girls and other people. They are liked because of the shameless - self love - they have. Compared that to a good guy who is full of shame wondering why he is not liked by girls. 

    Shame is the dimming of your light. If one understands only god can judge, one can be truly himself and re-enter the garden of Eden. 

    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.

  20. Posted

    4 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

    It's funny, people lose themselves in incel vs celibate vs player vs tryhard believing in one over the other

    when it's all equally useless ego-reinforcement dichotomies for a toxic coping mechanism

    This video should be a requirement for joining lol

    I ALWAYS think about this SPECIFIC video that I watched nearly a decade ago when I think about Red Pill guys and PUA guys.

    They're really just Incel guys that solves the 'fake growth' problem. But they haven't addressed the real issue.

  21. Posted

    19 hours ago, Lyubov said:

    I've been through this before myself. I can say that it was eye opening to me. A lot of it comes from beliefs about love and relationships that need to mature, and it's not just for men but women too. We have these ideals about love , we commodify it, we believe we need another person in order to have value when we don't, we can take on a very narrow perspective especially when in love because we see this person as sort of the fix for our addiction. The wider implications are relationships are always changing, love is not a commodity so this person isn't actually giving us anything just mirroring back what we have created, and that lastly and most importantly we don't need another person to be whole and should be prioritizing our own path. So all of this can really contradict and create a conundrum where we have to actively prioritize what is true and what benefits us the best and most in the most honest and authentic way and often times this can come at the expense of our ideal laced relationship which was filled with all sorts of intense passionate highs from sex and travel and really all the amazing stuff that is relating to people. Many people have a natural appreciation for relating. So the life lesson of sorts is to expand and really start to see the bigger picture, which doesn't seem to ever end. I know this exact topic intimately. my 3 year relationship ended exactly over this and many of the things you wrote here were a dynamic which my ex and I struggled with. I have heard her side quite well and have explored mine also so to me I feel very comfortable with my understanding on this. Basically I see this as an opportunity to approach love and relationships from a different angle and drop a lot of the ideals often times placed on them. I'm not sure the next time I will have a girlfriend. I definitely know I don't want one that prioritizes me as an ATM. 

    Well said.

    Now certainly, it's important to not be seen only as a provider of funds. The love and mutual connection element has to be there. 

    And there really are people who want to take advantage that exist out there, like gold diggers.

    It's more of a matter of taking into consideration practical things like a potential partner's work ethic and level of financial stability, as these factors will determine how much peace of mind you'll have and how sustainable the relationship will be.

  22. Posted

    13 hours ago, AION said:

    Thank you. I agree that I have chronic shame. It is also part of a pride culture of my parents. And pride and shame are connected. 

    But the thing is giving yourself self love is like asking a poor guy to stop being poor. I don’t think people can love themselves in the secular sense. One needs to connect to god or something. And be given he or she can’t himself / herself. 

    Shame is self consciousness. It is when Adam and Eve saw themselves being naked after the forbidden fruit which granted them self consciousness . It is the original sin. The price we paid for being self conscious and being our own gods. 

    The thing about shame is that, if you put ANY conditions on your validity, it just creates more shame.

    And because another person's affection is conditional, it will just exacerbate the shame issue if you see getting those affections as a necessary pre-requisite for recognizing your own worth and validity.

    That's not to say that you must stop seeking connection. It's that, seeking connection as a pre-requisite for letting go of shame and accepting yourself will just create deeper levels of shame. And that's true if every woman in the world started knocking down your door. 

    You see this pretty often with successful PUA guys who sleep with 100s of women, but are approaching their desire to be with women from a place of shame. They get good at getting women attracted to them, and on the surface it creates a temporary feeling of validation. But it just brings them deeper into shame and self-hatred... and typically really negative feelings towards women as well.

    Also, I made a video about shame and the creation story... and the original sin. It's from my shame and love series.

    I'll link it here because I think it will help you... 

     

  24. Posted

    @Tenebroso If you haven't had the types of experiences with women that you want to have, what do you attribute that to?

    I can tell you right now with 100% certainty, that it doesn't have to do with your level of physical attractiveness... or even personality attractiveness... or anything core to your nature.

    My suspicion is that you are getting too in your head about things and not opening yourself up to having jokey lighthearted fun with women... or in general. And I can tell by what you're written that you're letting your mind get in the way of your ability to engage in a relaxed and open way.

    Every relationship I've ever been in has always begun with witty jokey flirty banter that eventually morphs organically into something more. And if you're too worried about making her uncomfortable to be open and playful, you're not leaving space open for something more.

    Now, be sure to socially calibrate with this. Don't go 0 to 100. That would make a woman feel uncomfortable.

    Instead, just begin by having relaxed platonic conversation and build rapport and throw in a joke here and there. And as more and more rapport is built you can escalate slowly into more flirtatious banter. But the key here isn't to have an agenda and not to overthink it. And just have fun.

    And chances are that your room mate is probably a naturally gregarious flirty guy if he's getting lots of female attention.

  25. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

    I never understood why a woman who has a genuine concern for the upbringing of her children and family is considered some sort of gold digger or insecure or loving the man for wrong reasons or even incapable of loving men. It's a simple concern yet it's a very legitimate concern every woman should have, why should she be shamed for it. Is it the projection some men's own insecurities producing this cognitive dissonance in them? 

    I think a lot of comes from guys who haven't experienced a longterm relationship with a woman, and don't consider the practicalities of how things like a partner's work ethic, job, temperament, ethical code, etc. are the MOST important factors for how sustainable a relationship is... and just not realizing how vulnerable and stressed it leaves a woman and her children if her partner has deficits in these areas of life.

    Often times, before someone experiences a relationship and they lack the knowledge of how a real relationship works, there are focuses more towards intangible things like sexual feelings and physical attractions. And I notice that this is especially common in young inexperienced men who are drawn to women mostly out of a desire for sexual experience.

    And from that point of view, any considerations of things beyond pure physical/sexual attraction might be viewed as cold insincere gold-digging because they just don't realize how much of a dampener of peace, health, and happiness it can be to end up with an unsupportive partner. And they may not even be thinking of things beyond the physical attractions and read raw sexual desire as more sincere than the more complex considerations that mature women go through when selecting a long term partner.

    And often, the type of guy who sees these kinds of relationship considerations as gold-digging will often be hyper-focused on his own agenda and vulnerabilities (like the fears of a woman not genuinely wanting him but wanting his money). And because he is hyper-tuned into his vulnerability, he may not be able/willing to exercise empathy towards why a woman might take these things into consideration.