Make America Healthy Again is a joke.

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Stop this ridiculous gaslighting.

If only McDonald’s switched to electric stoves there would no longer be any gaslighting 

[Hsinav]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

It's constructive only if it brings value to the table. Unless your nice words help others broaden their perception, it amounts to verbal abuse only. 

This is about human regression vs human evolution. Not enough value...😅

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Its very interesting to me that you never engage with the substance and you purely focus on the rhetoric and nothing else. You never engaged with any of the points that were brought up against Trump in other threads, but you surely went out of your way to state in every thread "dont bully, guys, because its never okay to bully".

You had 0 response to the facts that were brought up about how many conspiracy theories Trump voters believe in, you had 0 response to jan6 , 0 response to trump falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen (and still denying that he lost in 2020) ,0 response  to Trump's  rhetoric and I can go on an on .  In the other thread you admitted that you are not read up on any of the Trump cases, but you still for some reason think you are justified in thinking that people who are against Trump must be because they have TDS , even though  you have 0 way to justify that + you are again admittedly ignorant about Trump.

You couldn't even concede some a basic fact (which is actually a necessary requirement for democracy to work), where we agree that there is such a thing as being delusional. If you can't even agree on that, then you need to acknowledge  the epistemic environement thats entailed from the "there is no delusion position"  - where we end up in a world,  where there is no way to solve some disagreements rationally  (because there is no mutual epistemic foundation to start from) ,so  we necessarily end up falling back on using force. 

 

 

The game here is not just purely about being persusive in a way so that you can change the given person's mind  ( in this case Trump's mind). Trash-talk can be effective to move your side to vote against a given candidate,  it can energize the in-group and create a stronger bond in the in-group which can be good for cooperation (the in-group outgroup divide and fight is not necessarily bad in all cases and in all context) , it can sometimes be effective to make that person feel bad (which can be good and can be an effective tool against some bad actors and sometimes bad actors wont stop and wont give a fuck about anything until you become more harsh with them). So those are just a few reasons, entertainment can also be added there.

We have already talked about this in the Terrence Howard thread, where you had no good response to this, but you still seem to be mainting this naive position where you deny all the negative downsides that are entailed - where bullying and trash-talk is never okay. 1 Issue with that is that you infinitely enable bad behaviour because you can never strike back and you infinitely legitimize bad behaviour and delusional thinking . There are some actors who are bad faith and wont stop their behavior unless you start to be more harsh. 2) If you engage in this dynamic where you have high standards for only your side and you give infinite leeway and excuses for the other side , then you inevitably set up your side to lose (this is game-theoretically a dumb move to do) and you also create an environement where you maximize the damage and exploitiation that bad faith actors can do , since there is 0 constraint and 0 repercussion and on the top of that you give constraints and repercussion only to your side which makes this whole dynamic extra bad, and you are playing a lose game.

Because the problem is not the perception of the world that people have. It's the condition of the perceiver itself that is either in alignment with truth and integrity or is actually clouded with shadow aspects of the ego. And that is where correction is actually meaningful. Because perception of reality is often just a reflection of the condition of the perceiver. So bringing awareness to the perceiver is most foundational and important and can bring nothing but positive changes since self awareness always aligns the perceiver closer to truth. The opinions people chose to hold is not really my concern. Everyone have always and will always have different opinions on different things. That's normal. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Hsinav said:

This is about human regression vs human evolution. Not enough value...😅

Ok

[Eph75]

1 hour ago, Hsinav said:

This is about human regression vs human evolution. Not enough value...😅

It really is not, it's about more or less effective forward movement in terms of evolution and understanding how one's actions may or may not have the effects you might consider.

For example, the dems losing the election is going to be focusing on the republicans that are "stupid" enough to vote for Trump rather than dems being self-reflective around that which is not resonating or pushing away the majority of the population. 

Some leftist politician in Sweden got caught on camera a number of years ago saying "it's not that we're wrong, it's just that the others haven't understood that we're right.. yet" 

Very arrogant and self-righteous stance, where themselves being wrong is an impossibility. Note that they can be wrong at the same time as the opposition also is wrong.

Exceptionally pushing for evolution is going to generate exceptional push-back - and - this will generate a flow back and forth between resistance, perceived regression, and again forward movement, while overall movement still remains being forward.

In the micro something may be seen as regression but it might just be the essential component for a more healthy longer term evolution. There's a tention between polairities that together tightly link to and influence evolution itself. It's part of, not something unwanted. 

Another option is to focus on understanding you audience and meeting people with politics that is more broadly acceptable change, rather than spearhead change that a system isn't ready to accept. 

But politics and society in whole isn't at a point where this is possible other than in more constructive subsets, and around some concerns. 

Are the stupid ones those that resist out of fear of change, or those that force change around which there is not widely spread maturity to accept more so than embrace fully. 

The only "stupid" act here would be to categorize the other polarity as being "stupid" deminishing "them" to some "dismissable nothing". 

Alot of this is done out of self-righteousness, allowing ones dogma not to see that there are multiple perspectives and they can all be true at once, as seen from different vantage points.

In a sense Trump is a manifestation created by the audience and not the other way around. Trump may be an opportunist for his own reasons but he as a possibility to be president is generated by the people, as a response towards something. 

Examine that something, discard the toxic components of that something, envolve the aspect that hold potential - adjust and adapt. 

You can't turn this around towards the Trump/reps simply because fear wins when grounds get shakey, and Trump uses this to gain power.

Conservatives and progressives cannot employ the same strategies, success are fundamentally different and calls for different strategies. 

(Im not evaluating the nature of power, just looking at this from a structure point of view) 

Much like this, people use similar power plays e.g. here and Leo is historically a player of power and arrogance, where attack is valid without substance, and it shaped his trusted following.

Edited 8 hours ago by Eph75

[zurew]

The reason why you lost the MMA match is because you havent polished up your BJJ and your boxing skills and not because the other party came with a loaded shotgun.

But only if you would have polished up your fighting skills, you would have won the match. The main reason you lost, is because your fighting skills were trash. Well, maybe next time. But the main point is to be self-reflective and to polish up your fighting skills before the next match and dont waste time and be a bully and self rightous by calling out or by putting any attention on the fact that you are engaging in a losing battle since your opponent will come with a rocket laucher to the next fight anyway.

Also dont be a dirty player by bringing a shotgun or a rocket launcher to the next match, because thats against the rules, bro. (even though the majority of the judges are perfectly okay with your opponent bringing a rocket laucher to the next fight , but they arent okay with you doing the same)

 

Edited 8 hours ago by zurew

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

The reason why you lost the MMA match is because you havent polished up your BJJ and your boxing skills and not because the other party came with a loaded shotgun.

But only if you would have polished up your fighting skills, you would have won the match. The main reason you lost, is because your fighting skills were trash. Well, maybe next time. But the main point is to be self-reflective and to polish up your fighting skills before the next match and dont waste time and be a bully and self rightous by calling out or by putting any attention on the fact that you are engaging in a losing battle since your opponent will come with a rocket laucher to the next fight.

 

Well said. 

[El Zapato]

@Eph75 I think it is much more simple than you state in the first case and incorrect in the second.

 

The U.S. is a diverse nation, and among the diversity are diverse 'approaches' to ostensible rationality. Some are delusional, some selfish and self-serving, some manipulative, some fear-inducing perception, some existential, and yes, some just plain stupid, and some represent the polar opposite. Ultimately, we screwed.

[Hsinav]

49 minutes ago, Eph75 said:

It really is not, it's about more or less effective forward movement in terms of evolution and understanding how one's actions may or may not have the effects you might consider.

For example, the dems losing the election is going to be focusing on the republicans that are "stupid" enough to vote for Trump rather than dems being self-reflective around that which is not resonating or pushing away the majority of the population. 

Some leftist politician in Sweden got caught on camera a number of years ago saying "it's not that we're wrong, it's just that the others haven't understood that we're right.. yet" 

Very arrogant and self-righteous stance, where themselves being wrong is an impossibility. Note that they can be wrong at the same time as the opposition also is wrong.

Exceptionally pushing for evolution is going to generate exceptional push-back - and - this will generate a flow back and forth between resistance, perceived regression, and again forward movement, while overall movement still remains being forward.

In the micro something may be seen as regression but it might just be the essential component for a more healthy longer term evolution. There's a tention between polairities that together tightly link to and influence evolution itself. It's part of, not something unwanted. 

Another option is to focus on understanding you audience and meeting people with politics that is more broadly acceptable change, rather than spearhead change that a system isn't ready to accept. 

But politics and society in whole isn't at a point where this is possible other than in more constructive subsets, and around some concerns. 

Are the stupid ones those that resist out of fear of change, or those that force change around which there is not widely spread maturity to accept more so than embrace fully. 

The only "stupid" act here would be to categorize the other polarity as being "stupid" deminishing "them" to some "dismissable nothing". 

Alot of this is done out of self-righteousness, allowing ones dogma not to see that there are multiple perspectives and they can all be true at once, as seen from different vantage points.

In a sense Trump is a manifestation created by the audience and not the other way around. Trump may be an opportunist for his own reasons but he as a possibility to be president is generated by the people, as a response towards something. 

Examine that something, discard the toxic components of that something, envolve the aspect that hold potential - adjust and adapt. 

You can't turn this around towards the Trump/reps simply because fear wins when grounds get shakey, and Trump uses this to gain power.

Conservatives and progressives cannot employ the same strategies, success are fundamentally different and calls for different strategies. 

(Im not evaluating the nature of power, just looking at this from a structure point of view) 

Much like this, people use similar power plays e.g. here and Leo is historically a player of power and arrogance, where attack is valid without substance, and it shaped his trusted following.

I,m not saying someone is right here, I,m just saying Trump and his gang is pure poison for America and for the world. A corruption and indignity that has a capacity to be unparalleled in modern history. Not about the voters, he will amplify the stupidity of the voters by a 1000 times .Trump doesn´t even have a stand. He will do whatever just to gain more power. A cat would do a better job than Trump.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How does one even get McDonalds in a private airplane? That requires extra special effort just to eat garbage on the fly.

I can only assume they order via the McDonald's app, and then have secret service agents, or some sort of delivery service such as GrubHub or DoorDash carry it to the plane.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Okay... I'm going to concede a bit to Trump here, but I really like him picking Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence. She met with Assad and seems to be a solid anti-war and anti-NATO voice.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

9 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I hope one day they all suffer profoundly in the end just like all of the Nazis did.

This is the type of overreactions go into their Liberal Owned meltdown TikTok compilations.

I'm not advocating that Trump would be a preferable presidency, but keep your composures. 

I highly doubt that Donald Trump is going to radically alter or destroy America is some way. He will do whatever he can to achieve his agenda, leave office within four years, and then that will be the last time we hear from him, and then we move on. 

Most people are not going to be affected by any of his policies, life with mostly continue as usual. Jim Crow laws are not coming back, and anyone who thinks they are is retarded. Neither is Democracy going to end.

Enough panic attacks.

Edited 6 hours ago by Husseinisdoingfine

[El Zapato]

@Hsinav But the cat would not be as manipulative and in league with the dark side.

[El Zapato]

@Husseinisdoingfine Don't let Gabbard fool you, she is in it for herself.  Looking for fame and fortune like all the blues turned red.  The blues minimized her long after I determined she was red material.  Even her daddy don't like her.  She's as phony ...well, I don't even have an analogy for that level... A 3-dollar bill.  

Edited 7 hours ago by El Zapato

[Princess Arabia]

6 hours ago, Salvijus said:

"The coming together to criticize people you don't like does not amount to constructive critism, it just amounts to verbal abuse"

Huh? This is different. Politics is not about people you don't like, like the neighbors. People's livelihood and survival strategies are at stake. You're speaking generally here and verbal abuse has nothing to do with this. Do some discernment here and see it for what it is.

Edited 6 hours ago by Princess Arabia

[LoseYourvelf]

They look healthy to me personally but RFK is a terrible pick for the health thing. As if us every folk don't have these common perceptive associations and his condition. yikes. replace immediately.

Edited 6 hours ago by LoseYourvelf

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Huh? This is different. Politics is not about people you don't like, like the neighbors. People's livelihood and survival strategies are at stake. You're speaking generally here and verbal abuse has nothing to do with this. Do some discernment here and see it for what it is.

🙏 🪷 ❤️ 

Edited 6 hours ago by Salvijus

[Buck Edwards]

7 hours ago, Salvijus said:

"The coming together to criticize people you don't like does not amount to constructive critism, it just amounts to verbal abuse"

This would have been true in case of a person who does not have any authority. However this is not so much about Trump but more about his policies that are designed to (ironically) hurt those who he does not like. 

 

[Hsinav]

Give it a few months, Trump and Musk will turn their maddened narcissism against each other and they become the enemies of the century, there is no happy ending in this house of cards

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

This would have been true in case of a person who does not have any authority. However this is not so much about Trump but more about his policies that are designed to (ironically) hurt those who he does not like. 

 

I will reflect on that. Thank you. 🌟🌸🦋