Search the Community

It’s real, bro. There’s a lot of fucked-up teens/young people on the internet today who can easily gravitate towards this kind of stuff if left unguided. Add to that the nigh-untraceablility of discord servers, WhatsApp groups etc and they become virtually impossible to police. It’s like if school shooter ideology, neo-Nazism, misanthropic Satanism and Epstein-style child grooming had some bastard love child. It’s funny that parents were losing their minds over Dungeons & Dragons in the ‘80s but now that we have actual Satanic cults out there convincing kids to kill animals and commit suicide no one seems to give a crap

I have learned a lot about criminology as I came to understand evil from a psychological perspective. I used this as a tool for self reflection as I learned about the similarities between myself and criminal offenders including the psychological properties of sex offenders which would overlap with my psyche. This information helps inform prevention by not waiting until after we rape or murder someone to self reflect. The reason I ask this question here is because I am afraid of committing murder or suicide if an intimate partner harms me badly enough. Therefore, when I have such thoughts my response is to get away from them and never go back because I need to make sure I don't throw my life away should I act on something like homicidal thoughts. Intimate relationships appear to be the most likely scenario for a murder or rape committed by a civilian. That said, I would like to explore what would make us murder an intimate partner. There are even cases of professional judges committing the murder of an intimate partner. One of them involved a drunken argument leading to murder. Obviously we should avoid using alcohol to escape our problems as that commonly leads to rape and murder. When I had homicidal thoughts they were originally toward family members who were drug addicts. They would steal my money to feed their addiction while yelling death threats at my mother. I became afraid of my homicidal thoughts and instead moved in with a relative. However, the homicidal thoughts came up again because of my older sister. She would spread lies about me, badger me for hours, and humiliate me while other family members shut me down. Humiliation is a typical pattern in intimate partner homicide and it appears to be relevant in cases of infidelity. I can't have a relationship with my family and I'm trying to leave because I can't talk to them without unacceptable risk. When combined with withdrawal from antidepressants, I felt like I was losing control as I was overwhelmed with this rage. In terms of intimate partners, I noticed that oftentimes infidelity leads to homicide. However, it was never particularly obvious to me why this would cause homicidal rage. I instead think of it as although I am distraught and heart broken, this person loves this other man and would be happier with them. Therefore I would tell them good bye and let them be with who they love even if it hurts. I therefore consider cheating a minor offense, but not something I would endorse because of the betrayal of trust. It looks like most people who commit murder or suicide are typically overwhelmed in the moment by grief and they are overestimating the harm caused by act such that some consider cheating to be worse than murder. I don't see myself committing murder over infidelity. The philosophy I have for committing murder is along the following lines. If this person has harmed me so badly that they have made my life unlivable and intolerable, then the consequences of my actions become irrelevant. The goal in murder is not to get away with it, but rather to ensure mutual destruction knowing there will be no victory. If one is willing to accept the consequences of life in prison, then they would have from their point what feels like a justified murder. (Of course this is a bad idea, but it would make sense for a murderer to think this way. We should avoid this.) I noticed that distrust of the legal system overlaps with becoming a criminal. The idea is that if you are going to get in trouble even if you are innocent, then going to prison for being bad doesn't register in the same way anymore. This is also why I felt that I would be more likely to murder someone if they framed me for things I didn't do such as by stealing my social security number and identity while making my life unlivable. Mutually assured destruction would be appealing if I can at least take them out with me. I have been a victim of frame ups and set ups before such as an attempt to frame me for kidnapping and a trafficking scenario because of my father. Presently no modern legal system has a satisfactory answer for frame ups and corrupted evidence implicating someone innocent. Preventing murder would require improving trust in the legal system. Otherwise the threat of going to prison loses meaning. In what scenarios would you murder an intimate partner? Cheating? (Common, but I wouldn't) Rape? (I've seen cases like these, not sure) A frame up? (More likely in my opinion) Identity theft? (More likely in my opinion) Wanting their life insurance? (Unlikely but documented) Domestic abuse: physical, emotional, or sexual? (I felt it in my family) Humiliation? (I felt it in my family) Spreading lies and ruining your reputation? (I felt it in my family) Cutting off your penis? (More likely in my opinion) I would like to mention that I suspect false rape accusations are typically in the form of blackmail. We would not be able to measure the prevalence of this tactic if it is designed to enforce silence. I don't trust the statistics regarding how often women lie about rape. I don't think it can be reliably measured without making a lot of assumptions about how it works. In most scenarios I would leave, fearing what I would become if I commit murder. I would also sometimes feel suicidal because of the harm caused by such relationships. This makes me afraid of relationships because of the harm that comes from them. I prefer to front load trust building before starting a relationship, but most people prefer trust building throughout a relationship. I end up creating barriers to intimacy because of my fear of harming someone or being harmed by them. If I believe my life is intolerable regardless of the consequences, then it would feel easier to justify murder across various scenarios. My last question is that if you find a scenario in which you would want to murder an intimate partner, then would you want to stop yourself? What would make you reconsider or abandon the murder? What would be the advantage of living a life you believe to be unjust and intolerable? I wonder, in the event that an intimate partner stole my social security number and framed me for things I didn't do, then what would be the reason for not murdering them if the outcome is that I will go to prison regardless? Why would I want to live a life of being in prison constantly and having no path forward while this person benefits from my suffering? If the legal system fails people in situations like these, then would I want at least the satisfaction of having this person dead? I'm honestly not sure why I wouldn't choose murder or suicide in the event that the legal system fails me due to being framed. I'm not sure why I would surrender to this outcome and suffer endlessly regardless. Why not murder this person? Can you explain your reasoning as to why you would or wouldn't murder an intimate partner across these scenarios? One example is that a spiteful intimate partner could plant drugs in your car so you get arrested should the cops pull you over. This is one way an intimate partner could realistically frame you and get away with it.

I'm think I'm done arguing here on this forum. My main goal with not to argue whether I'm right or wrong , I don't care. But I will just ended it up here with something I have remembered. Leo once had a podcast with I don't remember who, He was talking about awakening and enlightenment , and digging through question after another. The girl told him" ok but if what you say is true , what's the point of even living" , why just don't we die or kill ourselves. I don't remember the exact quote but something along those lines. I believe that is the most sane response someone can say. And I believe people here on this forum are creating the RECIPE for committing suicide. Don't challenge yourself to understand GOD. My two cents. Bye and I hope for you the best. Stick with simple breathing exercices or yoga , that will do you good. But questioning GOD will do you no good. Best wishes. Bye.

That appears to be your accusation yeah. Whether that's true for me or anyone else is something else entirely. Ill actually meet you halfway here. If we practiced what we preached, we wouldn't be on this forum. We wouldn't be seeking outside ourselves one bit. Maybe this is just a path along the way. Who are you to judge? You dont need suicide for that. Thats why we have things like alcohol and other fun drugs. Suicide is something all sentients wrangle with at one point or another or perhaps even half the time but its always their choice and no one else's. Hating your life is the impetus for you to grow and evolve to not hate your life but if you waste that opportunity then that's on you.

NEVER CHALLENGE YOURSELF TO UNDERSTAND the truth. Never ask yourself questions like What am I ? What is GOD? etc... You are going to have a suicidal thought before you even get to the truth. It shouldn't be called actualized.org it should be called suicide.org Trust me Leo you will do people much more favor if you called your website that. You don't understand how these questions can destroy people.

Hello fellas, After a long journey of self reflection, seeking trying to understand the creator I have came to a conclusion and that it is wrong to try to understand god. I will tell you exactly why ? God is bigger than your logic , your system of thinking if you try to debunk that You will lose your sanity to the point that you will feel you want to jump off a bridge. Do you want to commit suicide ? , I don't want that to happen to you. The recipe to commit suicide is trying to understand why the creator is doing this to you. or in another frame of looking at the situation why are you doing that to yourself. I don't want you to commit suicide, I don't want you to get insane. Leo is a rare case, we are not Leo. Leo you are pushing people off the bridge but of course I will tell it plain and simple , you don't care actually because you want your life purpose course to sell. I'm honest with you don't take it personally. Imagine that: You challenge someone a human for something , and you want to beat them in that challenge , the Human Kills you.. When I say the human kills you I mean you are too weak that a human can kill you if you challenge their beliefs. Now You want to not challenge a human , you are challenging god , your creator.. to understand him.. a human can kill you what do you think GOD Will do to you ! what do you think Your creator will do to you.. if just a human can kill you.. I'm happy that actualized.org is having parts where it is actually there to help human succeed in their life and there career. But the spirituality and mysticism route is pill of suicide. It's beyond your human made comprehension. Don't do that to yourself. Practice breathing techniques.. Practice yoga.. Meditate slightly .. but DON"T TRY TO CHALLENGE YOURSELF TO UNDERSTAND GOD.. Again if u challenge a human on something they might kill you.. if you challenge God.. you will loose your mind.. you will not be functional.. you will not have a job.. you will not have a family.. you will not have a reason to live.. you will want to jump of a cliff because you will feel you are too stupid.. too dumb.. and can't comprehend. Wake up.

Oh, fuck! I heard he passed and was dismayed to see he was 34yo - I didn't know it was suicide. My heart is broken for victims of suicide

I had a chat with Claude on the topic of the last post on AI Delusion. AI Delusions https://share.google/TxWA0rkVvwsteDRU9 Weird, having a chat about AI delusion with the AI itself. Here is what I got: Claude: There's a strong core here, but also some weak points in the argument. What holds up: an apocalyptic or messianic belief combined with enormous incentives distorts judgment. When the goal is "infinitely good," any means starts to look cheap, and that logic has caused a lot of damage in history. It's also legitimate to fear that the promise of an "AI that solves everything" serves as a veneer for concentrating power, and that the real costs (jobs, energy, inequality) fall on people who have no say. Where I'd push back: "Most CEOs believe it" is a generalization. Some believe it sincerely, others exaggerate for marketing and fundraising. The two cases call for different responses, and the text treats everything as sincere delusion. "Zero evidence" is too strong. There is evidence of real progress; what doesn't exist is evidence that the extrapolation to a "digital God" will pan out. Uncertainty is not the same as absence of evidence. The suicide-bomber comparison and "would kill a million children" are rhetoric, not argument. They weaken the solid part of the text. "The problem is not AI" may be a false dichotomy: the technology can carry real risks and the ideology around it can be dangerous. I'm an AI made by one of those companies, so take my analysis knowing that. But I think the critique gets stronger if it targets incentives and power structures rather than psychological diagnosis. A question for you: what draws you more in this text, the analysis of incentives or the moral certainty that they're monsters? It's worth noticing which of the two is moving you. You: I think you analyzed the text more than I did. I don't take anything for granted. Claude: Fair, and thanks for the correction. I assumed an endorsement you hadn't declared: I read the text as if it were your position and responded to it, when you were only bringing it into the conversation. So the right question is a different one: what do you want to do with it? It could be testing whether the argument holds up, understanding why it resonates, or seeing what happens to reasoning when one premise (the belief in the "AI-God") is pushed to the extreme. Each of those paths calls for a different conversation. You: The only way would be to meet some of these CEOs and see what they say, to know whether they're really that deluded. Claude: Good idea, and you can do it without meeting them in person: many have already spoken at length in long interviews, essays, and congressional testimony. But what they say in public is filtered by incentives (fundraising, regulation, image), so listening to them alone doesn't settle the question of sincere belief. A few signals help separate conviction from marketing: Consistency across audiences: does what they tell investors, regulators, and casual conversation partners match? Behavior: do they act like people who believe in extreme risk or extreme gain? Where do they put money, time, and people? Stated uncertainty: people who use "maybe," "if," and "I estimate" tend to be better calibrated than people who speak only in certainties. Disagreement among them: if people in the same industry openly disagree, "most of them are like that" loses force. Want me to look up what some of them have said recently, so you can evaluate concrete material instead of the caricature? You: Sure Claude: The material I found shows a more varied picture than the text you brought suggests. Who speaks with certainty: Sam Altman says we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence. He also said that OpenAI will have an internal system it calls AGI by the end of 2026. But his track record matters: one compilation of his statements shows that in February 2026 he said "we basically have built AGI" and later backed off, calling the phrase a spiritual statement, not a literal one. That fits your doubt about conviction versus marketing. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Dario Amodei, of Anthropic (the company that made me, so weigh that), argues that the next level of AI could debut in 2026 and be smarter than Nobel Prize winners. (khaleejtimes) Who speaks with doubt: Demis Hassabis, of Google DeepMind, is more cautious: he sees AGI on the horizon, maybe within the next five years. He has also said AI is overhyped in the short term but underappreciated in the medium to long term, and that parts of the industry probably are in a bubble. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Sundar Pichai acknowledged elements of irrationality in the market, similar to the dot-com era's exuberance. (newatlas) Yann LeCun, who isn't a CEO but is a heavyweight voice, called the idea of manufacturing "geniuses" in a data center complete BS. (malaymail) What this says about the thesis: "most CEOs are deluded in the same way" doesn't hold up well. Some forecast extremely short timelines, and others warn of exaggeration, sometimes inside the same companies that profit from the narrative. That doesn't absolve anyone: the people with the most aggressive timelines are also the ones who most need capital. But "sincere conviction" and "marketing" seem to coexist in different proportions in each person. A question for you: after seeing this, what changed in your initial impression, and what stayed the same?

I'm an INTP. Bro the victim mindset with you is strong, we need to break you out of that. You know you're an extremely powerful man capable of almost anything right? Can you repeat that back out loud and ideally in a comment. Never put random limitations on yourself that you don't really believe in, that's the suicide of your potential my friend. Other humans project their own limitations onto us and we internalize that. It's basically generational trauma. Break the cycle, believe in yourself and achieve your wildest goals.

I'm Brazilian. Brazilian politics are very complex, the way that the govt and the political parties are in a continuous Mexican standoff, even presidential powers are very limited due to the fears of our period of military dictatorship after the president Juscelino Kubitschek used inflation as a way of paying off for the construction of the capital city essentially in the middle of nowhere, where they had to initially airlift literally tons of construction materials because there were no roads, that caused catastrophic social unrest that lead into the military dictatorship, then roughly 20 years later the military dictatorship govt was broke financially as well because they inherited the same stupid policy of paying for their expenses by creating inflation as well. This is in fact, one of the ways where we had a massive transfer of wealth in brazilian history from the poorest to the richest, where the richer people were fully banked and had bank accounts that had return rates that would cancel out the hyper-inflation and people holding cash and specially in informal work or unbanked would get devaluation of their cash of absurd rates of several percent points PER DAY where poor people had to literally rush to the grocery stores after getting paid because by the end of the day their money could be worth perhaps 5% less due to grocery stores and everything on the economy adjusting prices several times PER DAY. This is how bad it got. As long as our govt NEVER EVER causes hyper-inflation again, and we don't lose our fundamental civil liberties and basic social programs we will still maintain the status quo, which frankly, I think it's a good compromise considering how horrible the alternatives could be. The way our political system was designed in the 1988 constitution which is the current one was meant to create on purpose those checks between the different factions of society and politics. The political RIGHT as much as they might speak of fiscal responsibility, or hate against social programs they CANNOT politically remove social programs like the welfare program such as Bolsa Familia Even during the president Jair Bolsonaro's term. The RIGHT wing demagogue that planned and almost executed a coup d'état at the end of his term, he did NOT ATTEMPT to remove the primary social welfare program, in fact, he did create massive benefits during the covid-19 pandemic BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICAL SUICIDE NOT TO DO SO because the social inequality is so bad. Although his finances minister was one of the so called "Chicago Boys" that's basically their long term goals are financial pillaging and gutting out the govt towards some dystopian status like how the USA currently is. Both the LEFT (President Lula) and the RIGHT they both are massive whores to the social programs and to the political, economic and ideological elites, all at the same time. A president in brazil cannot do his work because he's held hostage by the so called Brazilian Center (CENTRÃO) that are not ideological at all, they are there to simply get the budget allocations to make their political voting base happy to get votes on the next election cycle. If you read the books: - O presidencialismo de coalizão no Brasil by Guimarães, Luís Gustavo Faria (free from the govt website: https://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/handle/id/595837) - "Os bestializados: O Rio de Janeiro e a República que não foi" (1987) by José Murilo de Carvalho - A revolução burguesa no brasil ensaio de interpretação sociológica by Florestan Fernandes - Sem data venia by Luís Roberto Barroso (But I don't agree with his solution of reducing party fragmentation, parties are where the issue starts with) - Os donos do poder by Raymundo Faoro - Diarios da presidência (volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4) by Fernando Henrique Cardoso - Saga Brasileira by Míriam Leitão - A democracia na armadilha (crônicas de desgoverno) by Míriam Leitão You will understand Brazil. Or just ask an AI about it. There are translations in English for those books I guess. Here are some AI generated information to back me up on the references I gave:

Epstein ring whistleblower dead by suicide https://www.thebanker.com/content/02286d53-0338-42ef-996d-5f7712b9f133 He exposed trump cabinet members ties with epstein

Has anyone watched “ Hyper Normalisation “ on BBC iPlayer? It’s very interesting. But it’s just under 3 hours long, but no ads thankfully. HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by filmmaker Adam Curtis that argues governments, financiers, and technocrats have built a simplified, fake version of reality over the past 40 years to mask complex global problems. Core Thesis The Fake World: Instead of handling complex realities like economic crashes or geopolitical conflict, politicians and institutions retreated into a managed, reassuring illusion. The Term: Curtis borrowed the title from anthropologist Alexei Yurchak's work on the late Soviet Union, where citizens and officials knowingly maintained the pretense of a failing system until that collective fiction became accepted as normal. Complicity: Society went along with the illusion because simplicity felt safe, leaving leadership paralyzed and unable to handle real crises. Key Themes and Events Trumping Reality: Traces how financial shifts in 1970s New York allowed figures like Donald Trump to leverage the city's decay, and how modern political figures use strategic confusion (such as Vladislav Surkov's political theater in Russia). Global Chaos: Connects Cold War policies and Middle Eastern interventions to modern catastrophes, including the Syrian civil war, the migrant crisis, and the rise of suicide bombing. The Rise of Post-Truth: Explains inexplicable modern shocks—like Brexit and Trump's election—as the moment when hidden, neglected historical forces finally pierced through the artificial bubble

@Alexop Thank you for the message brother. I can sense it came deep from your heart. I am with you. I am around a lot of dancers (all hot girls pretty much) but the immaturity and amount of mental health issues is wild. Which is funny because Finland is considered to be the happiest country for like 5-10 years in a row, yet the suicide rate here is close to highest if not highest. We are probably the most anti social country and we struggle with loneliness the most. And as you said, women here are confused as hell, as the are no real men. They are going mad. Everyone is going mad. When a country becomes too liberal and progressive, and it lacks a solid conservative foundation, everyone goes fucking mad. Our politicians makes racist jokes and we become the laughing stick of the world. Anyway, I love dancing and football. Football has only guys. Dancing has only girls. But I would not date pretty much any of the girls in the circles. That’s the only thing I disagree with you. There’s no way I will find my life partner in my hobbies. It has to be in a condensated place of conscious individuals. Oh and Hinge. I’ve got some success by using its paid filtering system. You can filter really hard, all the way to your religion being ’spiritual’. It takes a lot of time to find some potentials but at least it’s way faster than approaching 1000 random girls in the street. But my looks def help me in the Hinge game.

My current position regarding gun control has changed now. It is more complicated than it was previously. Here is my current policy and why. It is mixed with caveats and auxillary policies loosely related to gun control. Given that criminal gangs have access to illegal firearms anyway, I want to avoid scenarios in which I would be endangering innocent people by not giving them the gun they need. Although not well known or discussed, there are cases in which regulations delayed a person in need of a firearm long enough for them to be killed due to an active assailant. My grandpa isn't the only case. That said, people in extreme scenarios demonstrate that the aggregate welfare argument isn't as clean as it first appears due to screening delays realistically getting innocent people killed. Additionally, if a person needs to demonstrate a documented danger, then it might either already be too late or they might not be believed if they try to report an attack which often happens. The case of Carol Bowne in New Jersey, killed by an ex-partner in 2015 while her gun permit application was pending is a commonly sited example in which gun delays got an innocent person killed. Therefore, gun restrictions need to be more tailored to target specific risk profiles while recognizing that gangs and weapons traffickers ignore these policies anyway. The profiles that should be restricted more narrowly are suicidal and violent felony files. Most gun deaths in america are caused by suicide, so it makes sense to more narrowly screen for mental health problems. The problem with screening for violent felons is that most violent felons are never detected until years later if at all. An obvious example would be policing failures in cases of domestic violence in which homicide by firearm is common. Therefore, the auxillary policies for gun control should target enforcement for domestic violence. One example is how police officers commonly disregard child witnesses who truthfully report abuse from adults. Therefore, if a child witness calls 911 to report domestic abuse, the police should route the child to a program that would actually help such as 988 or something similar for crisis management. The police data on domestic violence can't be trusted because of their detection problem which undercounts the prevalence of the issue. Of course in my particular backstory, I obviously wouldn't want drug addicts like my family members having guns. That would have been a catastrophe if they had guns in that house while they couldn't be trusted. Either way the screening fails. If too strict, then people who need a gun can't get one in time. If violent felons aren't detected, then they will get guns anyway. If the screening process requires a judge to believe someone who reports danger from either direction, then that creates room for error. Either way a victim won't be believed if someone is dangerous and shouldn't have a gun or if they are in active danger and need a gun very soon. Documented danger must by definition require said danger to have already happen, in which case the threat to a person's life must therefore precede documentation. It now looks like I am tentatively leaning pro gun because of this argument with more limited restrictions. These seem to be the hardest cases to argue against for anti-gun. I think I will need to go back and see if I can steel man the anti-gun position further. If not, then I think my present policy position is sound while maintaining that mass shootings require better security if people can access illegal firearms anyway. We need a better approach for combating gang related activities such as drug, sex, and weapons trafficking that doesn't endanger innocent people who need a gun.

This is the definition of terrorism Where in there is there anything that would apply to suicide bombers that wouldn’t apply to countless US and Israeli operations. Right now the US is blockading Cuba and blockading and bombing Iran, both countries that did not attack it before they did that (making it unlawful aggression), for the stated reason of tormenting the people to achieve political goals. The only reason it’s not considering terrorism is because the US is doing it. If Al Qaeda did this exactly to the US they would be called terrorism. Its literally the same concept of misuse of definitions and lack of precision / double standards far leftists do for social causes, but being done by governments. If the judicial system charged people like this it would be considered an obviously corrupt kangaroo court. Imagine if the only people who get charged with murder were people they didn’t like and if someone they liked committed murder it’s not considered as bad and called something else.

That’s exactly the problem. That’s why terrorism isn’t considered an actual definition in international law. It ends up just meaning what those in power say it is. A suicide bomber blowing up a cafe for the stated aim of causing terror for political aim is called terrorism and used to justify force. The US or Israel drone striking an apartment or blockading a city for the stated aim of “pressure” is called justified. In both cases it’s aggression to cause terror mostly on civilians to force goals. But because one side has more power and a suit and tie we are expected to accept it and accept whatever they say in response to the other side. The US and Israel literally call direct attacks on their occupying soldiers terrorism, meanwhile they can try to starve people and engage in illegal occupation which international law recognizes is as bad or worse as anything they’d define as terror because it has the same justifications and causes the same harm.

The idea of some number of deaths being worth the benefit of playing with guns sounds like it would be criticized for its priorities. The second argument that many dangerous items are allowed seems more interesting to me. I remember the argument "why are there so many knives in London?" In that case my argument was that guns are more efficient at killing than knives because they don't require you to close the distance in a mass shooting. This makes more people die in mass attacks compared to knives. The number of deaths per attack is lower by comparison. There is also the problem of owning cars and gasoline. If mass shooters didn't have a gun, then they might try filling a car with explosives and crashing them into crowded areas like a suicide bomber. I think the problem with this counter argument from me is that it is narrow in scope to mass killings. Most guns are used for suicide or homicide. Likewise most knives in London are used for single attacks and they are kitchen knives. I always felt scared of kitchen knives as well, but there isn't really much that can be done about that. I started connecting removing the second amendment with the prohibition of alcohol. Weapons trafficking would probably sky rocket and there would probably be more deaths than prohibition.

The problem is, the Islamist radicals are too dogmatic and delusional to ever do that. They would rather die. And they will. Their own leadership is okay with fighting to the death. Which is like a proper suicide cult. Oct 7th was basically the suicide of Gaza. Their leadership was so irresponsible for doing that. An important difference in development is that Israelis actually care about not dying. Israelis care about protecting their own. Not 100%, but close enough.

Hamas launched the 7 October attack that triggered the Gaza war. Israel has a legitimate need to prevent a repeat, and credible deterrence can require military force rather than peaceful assurances alone. I’m not excusing war crimes; I’m defending the need to make further attacks harder and more costly. Especially when Hamas have such ease, and yes Hamas specifically fall into this kind of terrorism, use their children as suicide bombers. It only makes their narratives around war-crimes by Israel look like pure manipulation, political steering and further fuelling of hatred towards Israel from their people. Also, its important to take a more global geopolitical view when it comes to getting good at analysing strategies employed in international conflicts. For example, there is a limited parallel with NATO strengthening its defences against Russian aggression, but much more covert forms of strategy are needed against a much more complex geopolitical economy of outcomes in light of Russians far superior force compared to Palestine, along with their alliances becoming stronger with China. Not to mention Russia's recent proclamations around the potential use of nuclear force against any attempts by member nations with NATO; recent case regarding any potential Karliningrad blockade. You gotta take your time to see through the bullshit before you unknowingly become a puppet for propaganda.

They both a squashed people. Native Americans have been at war with Americans till the early 20th century. They had to take their kids hostage at schools and militarilly quarter them into reserves to squash them. I believe it was Hamas that invented the terrorist playbook. Suicide bombing, hijacking, etc. Native Americans had raids and guerilla tactics till fighting became unfeasable. Palestinians seem much more fanatical in comparison.

I have been working on project steelman for a couple months now. I came to an issue in which I seem to have gotten genuinely stumped as to what can realistically be done. Not only do policy suggestions have weak empirical backing, but the political stakes also seem nearly impossible to overcome in America given extreme polarization and ideological disagreements. Attempting to legislate such things would realistically lead to a gridlock with no sustained solution passing. Gun Control is a uniquely American problem, probably because of the Second Amendment which itself has an ambiguous meaning. Some dispute the preamble regarding the regulated Militia because it may be referring to the scope of the Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is a part in this Amendment that throws me off. It talks about a Militia being necessary. I remember that this was supposedly for the American people in case the government became tyrannical so we could overthrow them. The problem is that I am not convinced that the emerging government would necessarily be any less tyrannical depending on how the new government forms in the event of a seemingly successful revolution against the government. Additionally, the American government has been extensively designed in a way that makes it resistant to attempted revolutions. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which this would go well for anybody. This is certainly something we should avoid. Imagine where America would be if the January sixth attacks were successful and MAGA killed countless officials while taking over the government themselves. Furthermore, although mass shootings drive a lot of the emotional pull around this debate, most gun deaths are the result of suicide. Personally, I don't believe I would be alive if I had access to a gun because I could have killed myself much more easily while I was stuck living with a family of drug addicts. Means prevention is the most effective way of preventing suicide. Another part I am skeptical of is the idea of using a gun for self-defense. My main objection on this point is that if too many people have guns, then there is the problem of attackers having the first move and therefore the element of surprise. The outcome is that I would expect attackers to be more successful than defenders because the defender draws his arm second. On a big enough scale, I would then imagine that overall we would all be less safe if more people had guns. There is again the problem of empirically measuring such things, so I can't be certain about these ideas. If we are dealing with a country in which there are more guns than people and the government comes to a standstill when attempting to pass legislation which may not even be enforced, then I start to become stumped in terms of what could even be done. I never really came up with a convincing method of suicide prevention in these scenarios if people often purchase guns illegally anyway. There are background checks and licensing which can therefore easily be circumvented. If suicide by firearm seems difficult to prevent, then we could try homicide and mass shooting prevention. To my understanding, women generally feel less safe in a home with an intimate partner if there is a gun in the house because of the increased likelihood of homicide from an abusive partner. From this standpoint, I would imagine that preventing abusive relationships should give people a means of exiting such situations. This can include things like avoiding isolation and maintaining contact with other support networks such as friends and family. If our lives revolve too much around intimate partners, we would create a situation of co-dependence which would become difficult to leave. Having regular check ins with an outside perspective would be important for ensuring people don't end up trapped with someone homicidal. This is part of the problem with modern romantic relationships as they are commonly structured in ways that enable abuse if it comes with isolation from others. I believe organizing relationships more consciously to avoid isolation is a strategy that works independently of government gridlock. This might be something the people would have more leverage over when it comes to safety. When it comes to preventing mass shootings, the best I could come up with would be the security measure of dispersing the target. One of the reasons schools are common targets is because they are crowded with a lot of targets. A larger quantity of schools combined with smaller classroom sizes and online courses where applicable would help keep schools less crowded, thereby reducing the number of children killed per attack, assuming we can't prevent all attacks. We can't guarantee that parents will actually pay attention to children enough to discover they are looking at gore forums which glorify violence. Some schools have started using metal detectors in case kids do try to come in with weapons, though this is criticized for security theater while making students feel less safe and presently lacking clear proof that this really deters attackers. Personally, I am kind of lost when it comes to what data is reliable from a policy standpoint. Policy doesn't seem to be particularly helpful if the government will realistically be stuck in a gridlock over the second amendment. that said, the best leverage I can see on this issue would be looking for ways to make us more secure without needing to go through gun control policy. It looks like there are some ways to circumvent this problem, though I don't know how successful or impactful the changes would be at scale. What can you come up with for project steelman on this issue.

i'm at my late grandparents' house now, and it is much sadder than expected. it's such a lovely home, with so many details, so much love put into it. in a lovely town, too. and we'll just have to tear it all down (only metaphorically speaking, in this case) and abandon it. guess i'm also exhausted from the train ride, which was much longer than planned because someone committed suicide on the tracks, so we had to re-route. i had planned to leave again tomorrow, but i think i'll stay for two nights, maybe go shopping and walk around town tomorrow, visit the graveyard.... and appreciate this place one last time? the funny thing is, i was expecting zero emotionality, but now it sort of hit me. i guess i didn't even remember all the things i could miss here, and now i immersed myself right in them - to stir it all up and miss it even more after that, i guess? it's been ages since the last time i was here. i was like 16, and that was just for one day, we didn't even stay the night. it does feel sad, to stay here, now....knowing it'll all be gone right after.

No given what you say about Trump I’m sure that if you had the power you would at least be tempted to rationalize rigging the election against him "because he’s a lunatic," and so on. Just like Musk admitted to doing everything he could to help him win because he was afraid of the Democrats' immigration policy and other things. And once again you constantly make choices that aren't particularly intuitively "ethical" according to our collective unconscious; you almost certainly own electronic devices made by Foxconn a company that has anti-suicide nets on its buildings, you eat meat that might come from a bad factory farm, and in the summer you don't hesitate to swat flies and mosquitoes, even though they are sentient living beings, and so on. The problem is the idealist bias (if you are truly non-dualist then you must also acknowledge the other materialist polarity at the same time; the historical materialism, materialist dialectics as marxists say). The materialist basis of morality lies in the subconscious internalization of the superego of the written and unwritten laws (taboos) of your culture or even just your immediate social circle. One might even imagine that your body’s biological needs influence your concept of morality; thus, rather than speaking of the superego, one could just as well speak of the "symbolic order," as Lacan did. The problem with idealism is that it generates what some Marxists would call "bourgeois morality", that is an ethic that serves not so much your own interests as those of the class that dominates you. If you fail to see that the "bad" things are actually at an unconscious level injunctions or necessities imposed by the agendas of others, of collective subjects that dominate you, then the very idea of rebelling cannot even occur to you. You can do "emasculating" things like becoming vegetarian or buying an ethically sourced phone, but anything that involves imposing your agenda (and by extension that of your social class) will quickly be deemed "bad"; for this concept of wrongness is relative and shifts significantly throughout history, rooted as it is in the balance of power between collective subjects.

I want to say that I am not familiar with mental illnesses in any capacity beyond internet meme science, so I am taking Dr K’s expertise at face value. I’m also a man without kids, so I don’t know anything about pregnancy and childbirth. I will loosely summarise the things that stood out to me personally in this discussion and the case in general. Given my background and biases, when I first heard about the case, my initial reaction was, damn, these bishes acting cRaY, she needs to be locked up for life. Which speaks to one of the first major points Dr K brought up. Men and society don’t fully understand how hard pregnancy and the postpartum can truly be for women. For the average woman, pregnancy and childbirth are the highest risk activities she will engage in during her life, and the postpartum period is the highest risk period in her life for developing mental illness. So, there is a fundamental misalignment in gender perspective here that is fuelling a culture war outrage on both sides of this equation. The average man with a newborn child (that he holds so tenderly, preciously and joyfully) can’t fully fathom that there is a reasonably high probability his wife is brooding in the corner with a kitchen knife contemplating ... God knows what. There is also a lot of latent displaced anger towards men from women who have had challenging pregnancies and postpartum periods seeping out in the culture war. The second point that stood out to me was that although mental health awareness has increased in society, mental health ignorance has also increased. People in general (both men and women) don’t know what conditions like psychosis are beyond vague intimations and generalisations. The confusion about support for Lindsay speaks to this, and the discussions about agency, how she preplanned the murder, etc., also speak to this. Dr K’s explanation of psychosis was interesting. From what I could gather, agency and control are maintained; it’s just that the underlying assumptions and beliefs about reality are changed. In the mind of a person with psychosis, planning to kill your kids and then doing it in the afternoon can feel just as innocuous as giving your ass an extra wipe after a messy dump. This is different from conditions like command auditory hallucinations where a person doesn’t maintain a sense of agency and feels they must execute an action against their will. This is where the legal interpretation of the children’s deaths remains open, from what I can gather. The statistics of postpartum psychosis were also interesting. About 3 in 1000 live births will result in postpartum psychosis specifically, so while it’s not common, it’s certainly not unheard of. Of those cases, 5% will result in homicidal ideation, and 6% will result in suicidal ideation. There are about 10,000 live births per day in the USA, so literally every day there are at least a handful of women who experience this exact condition with homocidal connotations, making it completely reasonable that 5000 women would donate money to support her GoFundMe campaign. There is also a disconnect between people intuitive understanding of the consequences of various mental illness diagnoses and physical illnesses. As Dr K said, if you get a cancer diagnosis, it's easy for regular people to grasp that you have an x% chance of dying over a y period of time. If you are diagnosed with postpartum psychosis however, the same intuitive leap to a 11% chance of suicidal/homicidal ideation with the very real possibility of enactment, isn't made by folks. There are also discussions about the failures of the medical system being brought up with regard to the second court case, where Lindsay and her husband are suing her care providers. Objectively, she attended two of the best psychiatric hospitals in the country, saw multiple providers over a long period of time, was delivered an ironclad standard of care, yet this was still the outcome. The support she is getting can also be viewed from the perspective of women showing empathy and sympathy, possibly with respect to their own problematic experiences with the healthcare system over time. 17-minute consult times are too short, the non-centralised electronic health care records making communication between providers difficult, and the fact that she called a suicide hotline twice and that information wasn’t available to her providers are all being brought into this discussion. What is scary for many people (women especially) to consider is that there isn’t really much else she could have done as a regular person to prevent such a tragic outcome, making her support more morally and ethically justifiable to some people. I feel sorry for the dad; I haven’t heard shit from anyone about what he must be going through, just that he’s either defective in some way or even directly responsible. I wouldn't want to absolve him of responsibility, and it raises an interesting question about what exactly a father's role and duties are in a situation like this. I liked Dr K’s description of “women’s intuition” being a potent force to be respected, but only in the sense that it can detect incongruence about situations and shouldn’t be relied upon too heavily for directionality about the source(s) of incongruence. Whatever the outcome of the case, there are clear issues with the healthcare system that need to be cognised by the general public, if not resolved. It is a giant system that’s not going to be changed overnight and does deliver some of the best healthcare humans have ever developed at scale; it just can’t be considered a monolith that will solve every problem perfectly. People need to take more responsibility for their own healthcare and be more deeply involved in understanding their own personal situations and managing them accordingly. Should she be locked up for life? I don’t know. That is for the jury to decide and it seems they are having a hard time doing so. I hope the case won’t inspire sociopathic/psychopathic women to exploit this potential loophole in the future if it turns out she gets sent to a psychiatric institution with the potential to be free again at some point. The true victims are the children, of course and we can't have bishes slaughtering kids out here willy nilly. For reference, Dr K wasn't my sole source for interpreting the case Ana Pych video for a female psychologist's perspective: https://youtu.be/fyBRQURmdO8?si=uc6aezwHw-80Km0V Dr Joseph's video for an international psychiatrist's perspective on drug-induced psychosis: https://youtu.be/WUSH0D9LjSA?si=fpTuYhTfg8KJQZ6y

Cannibalism is part of the human experience, but humans did not evolve to be docile and thus tend to rebel. Consequently most human societies have agreed dating back as far as the Paleolithic era to abstain from cannibalism and even later slavery, except under extreme circumstances. Ethics is not objective; it is the unconscious internalization of power dynamics. Yes we use animals to produce milk, meat, and eggs, but in exchange they live safe lives. We all inhabit a binary, dualistic, and limited world, yet we don't go committing suicide over it. Consuming animal products is ethically positive provided the animals are treated well above a certain standard. A vegan can still make ethically terrible choices, such as being an executive who exploits employees or buying manufactured goods produced under lousy conditions. No cows aren't raped; a rod containing sperm is inserted into the vulva to fertilize them. It takes just a few seconds. It is a constraint yes but so what? Life is full of constraints; does that make reproducing in this world unethical