Despite not wanting to, I resonate with Andrew/Tristan Tate

[The Renaissance Man]

@MarkKol I mean I don't see the problem then. Sure, it's not top quality advice, but if it resonates and it makes you a better person, what's the problem?

The critiques Tate gets are about the mysoginy and the low quality courses he offers. As long as you're able to be critical and not fall for that, it's all good IMO. No need to beat yourself down. And if the teachings are toxic, drop them and outgrow them when they stop resonating.

[Consept]

@MarkKol

 

 

[Recursoinominado]

I have listened to many of Tate's speeches and mindsets about life, business, etc. They do have good points. They embody stage red and orange, which we all need to integrate, but they are also stuck on those stages and are a clear warning for what happens when you go too far on those stages alone.

[What Am I]

On 11/23/2024 at 9:31 PM, Scholar said:

They aren't pedophiles, but child predators.

Don't tarnish pedophiles by associating them with Tate.

 

On 11/23/2024 at 9:36 PM, Scholar said:

And Andrew Tate isn't merely attracted, he is a predator, which most pedophiles are not.

The last time you and I discussed the taboo subject of incest, you gave a pretty effective argument in the positive that budged my opinion a bit. I definitely could be wrong, but I sense you may also believe there's no moral issue for adults to have sexual relations with children, assuming everything is consensual. Would you be able to lay out the reasoning? And if I've inaccurately attributed an opinion to you, I apologize.

[ryoko]

Ideas come from Intensity. Just because someone have great ideas doesn't mean he knows what he is doing. 

It's easy to speak. Harder to embody. And much easier to con.

Don't just listen the words, look at their actions, look at their energy. If it still resonates, nice. Try watching movies/documentaries by Peter Joseph. You'll see the contrast. 

Edited Monday at 09:25 PM by ryoko

[Leo Gura]

Despite not wanting to I resonate with the Devil.

[Scholar]

On 24.11.2024 at 11:15 PM, What Am I said:

The last time you and I discussed the taboo subject of incest, you gave a pretty effective argument in the positive that budged my opinion a bit. I definitely could be wrong, but I sense you may also believe there's no moral issue for adults to have sexual relations with children, assuming everything is consensual. Would you be able to lay out the reasoning? And if I've inaccurately attributed an opinion to you, I apologize.

 I do not believe it is acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with children, given that I consider children incapable of informed consent. Age of consent laws specifically exist to protect children, they are reasonable laws because they do not fundamentally restrict two individuals from being in a relationship, given that it is merely a temporal limitation.

My stance on pedophelia is that it is a psychological condition that individuals suffer from. Such individuals should not be stigmatized because they do not choose to be born, or have developed, this way. They ought to be supported by society to process their feelings, to mitigate the likelihood of abuse occuring. Pedophelia does not mean having sexual relations with children, it basically means having an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. A 15 year old can be a pedophile.

An adult who violates children is a child predator, and might be a pedophile, although most child predators are not pedophiles, according to experts.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/

 

This article goes into this. Finkelhor coincidentally also conducted a study in the 80s that showed that most incestuous interactions between underage siblings were non-abusive/-coercive. It was the only study ever conducted to investigate incest outside of the context of incestuous abuse, and given how significant the social and academic backlash was, it might remain such for quite some time. Finkelhor appears to be very objective and non-moralistic in how he conducts his science.

Edited Tuesday at 01:22 AM by Scholar

[What Am I]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I do not believe it is acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with children, given that I consider children incapable of informed consent. Age of consent laws specifically exist to protect children, they are reasonable laws because they do not fundamentally restrict two individuals from being in a relationship, given that it is merely a temporal limitation.

This is my thoughts exactly. I was curious if you were going to throw out some intellectual judo that made me view things from a different angle, lol. You've been pretty good at that in other convos. But I guess there's some consensus here regarding sexual relations between children and adults.

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

My stance on pedophelia is that it is a psychological condition that individuals suffer from. Such individuals should not be stigmatized because they do not choose to be born, or have developed, this way. They ought to be supported by society to process their feelings, to mitigate the likelihood of abuse occuring. Pedophelia does not mean having sexual relations with children, it basically means having an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. A 15 year old can be a pedophile.

Yeah, I can empathize with pedophiles' plight. It's a crappy situation to feel such desires. It's unfortunate when people simply feel blind hate towards them, as is so common.

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

An adult who violates children is a child predator, and might be a pedophile, although most child predators are not pedophiles, according to experts.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/

 

This article goes into this. Finkelhor coincidentally also conducted a study in the 80s that showed that most incestuous interactions between underage siblings were non-abusive/-coercive. It was the only study ever conducted to investigate incest outside of the context of incestuous abuse, and given how significant the social and academic backlash was, it might remain such for quite some time. Finkelhor appears to be very objective and non-moralistic in how he conducts his science.

Also interesting, I'll check it out.

Thanks for being so candid in your response. I wasn't sure how you would take the question since it's so profoundly taboo.

[Scholar]

Just now, What Am I said:

This is my thoughts exactly. I was curious if you were going to throw out some intellectual judo that made me view things from a different angle, lol. You've been pretty good at that in other convos. But I guess there's some consensus here regarding sexual relations between children and adults.

Age of consent laws are easy to justify because they don't come at a great cost. There is no good reason for someone to not wait until someone is of age, for them to approach them for a sexual relationship. Nothing is truly lost, and a significant protection is given on a societal scale. Additional, when it comes to punishment, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim.

This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is.

I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it.

 

4 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Also interesting, I'll check it out.

Thanks for being so candid in your response. I wasn't sure how you would take the question since it's so profoundly taboo.

I don't take any offense.

[What Am I]

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is.

It's funny how something can appear counterintuitive at first but then clarify with explanation.

As I'm guessing you know, there are those on the political right in the US who live in rural areas and practice incest. Many are heavily mocked for it, even by the more educated left. I imagine this would also demonstrate the bias you're describing. It's interesting how being smarter doesn't automatically make one thoughtful, so to speak.

55 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it.

Makes sense.

[integral]

@Scholar whenever I see you posted something I just think, this guy is the personification of morality. 😂 it’s like a superhero archetype. The justice scholar. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:12 AM by integral

[Ulax]

@MarkKol Imo they resonate well because they are very good at marketing. And from their marketing skills they know how to emotionally impact you.

I’m not too in the know when it comes to specific marketing principles but I’d argue that that is what is happening here. Some of their content has resonated with me too in the past.

But just because something resonates strongly doesn’t mean that that thing is a useful thing to bring into your life imo. Otherwise everyone who joins a cult would be having fulfilling lives.

Anyhow, all best to you mate 👍. Interesting topic.

Edited Tuesday at 04:36 AM by Ulax

[Scholar]

On 26.11.2024 at 3:40 AM, What Am I said:

It's funny how something can appear counterintuitive at first but then clarify with explanation.

As I'm guessing you know, there are those on the political right in the US who live in rural areas and practice incest. Many are heavily mocked for it, even by the more educated left. I imagine this would also demonstrate the bias you're describing. It's interesting how being smarter doesn't automatically make one thoughtful, so to speak.

I have not seen evidence that incest is practiced more prevalently by those on the political rights in rural areas. Individuals who are consanguinamorous seem to skew towards progressives and more well educated individuals, from the online polling I have seen. But that could be a selection bias given that more educated individuals might engage in such online polling.

Usually conservative people will be more judgemental towards such relationships for various reasons, I think the clichee attributed to the rural people of the south in the US is largely a myth. It was actually the catholic church which specifically enforced a lot of the moral norms around incest in the past, which is why in france incest has been decriminalized since the revolution, as it was sa rejection of Christian repression of human freedoms.

 

But yes, basically everyone engages in this type of discrimination, including progressives. The way most individuals ethically reason is still significantly underdeveloped. I have seen so many jokes progressies make about inbreeding, mocking the lack of intelligence and the physical appearence of their enemies by comparing them to inbred people. The fact that this is acceptable, while simply using the r-word is considered a grave sin, is obviously absurd. 

Inbred people genuinely have to fear mockery in our society, they often feel incredible shame given the stigma around the topic. And yet, most progressives will laugh at jokes that will genuinely mock such individuals and their traits, with zero self-reflection for how absurdly cruel this is. Even if you thought incest was immoral and wrong, how can you mock and shame the children who were born of inbreding for that?

But this just shows you what incestophobia does to people. You basically get a free pass to mock disabled people, or people with undesirable physical traits, or "genetic inferiority".

 

Ethical reasoning is a very tricky thing, most people don't engage in it full stop, and those who do often do not even have a notion of what bias is. People don't learn that, when you feel a strong emotion of disgust towards something, that maybe you should actually be more careful around how you reason, and question those feelings rather than using them blindly to fuel your reasoning. We are making the same mistakes as we observed homophobes engage in in the past, because there is no fundamental ethical education today. 

The irony is, you can use your intuition for ethical reasoning, but not if you have spent your entire life informing your intuition through blind adoption of the norms around you, which is what basically everyone does. If you do engage in genuine ethical reasoning, over time your intuition will be a tool that will serve you in this regard, and you will be able to see injustice where others might not.

Edited 22 hours ago by Scholar

[What Am I]

@Scholar very insightful, thanks. I agree with you regarding the inconsistencies and unfortunate bias demonstrated by so many.

Do you have any thoughts on the relatively recent change in porn offerings? Specifically, the massive increase in popularity of incest porn? I'm guessing there's some interesting psychological dynamics at play, considering it's still taboo on the surface, but it's highly prized in terms of individuals' hidden desires.

[Scholar]

24 minutes ago, What Am I said:

@Scholar very insightful, thanks. I agree with you regarding the inconsistencies and unfortunate bias demonstrated by so many.

Do you have any thoughts on the relatively recent change in porn offerings? Specifically, the massive increase in popularity of incest porn? I'm guessing there's some interesting psychological dynamics at play, considering it's still taboo on the surface, but it's highly prized in terms of individuals' hidden desires.

Incest is a taboo, and a clear victimless taboo in most of the scenarios described in pornography. That is probably one of the main appeals of it. You're not supposed to do it, but it doesn't hurt anyone in the end. It also shows that the main reason for why this moral norm is enforced culturally seems to be eugenics, given that there is a clear distinction made between step family incest and "real" incest, even though in terms of the ethical concerns, step family incest is probably more harmful than real incest, proportionately speaking, because step-family seem to be more likely to sexually abuse you than your regular family.

So ironically, the taboo around incest is likely the main driver around the fetishization of incest. The fetishization of incest is in many ways harmful to individuals who are in such relationships, because it leads to incest being viewed as a sexual deviancy rather than simply two individuals pursuing a romantic relationship. This is why many people so easily dismiss the concerns of this minority, because they view it mostly through the lense of a fetishization or lack of impulse control. From their point of view, they see it as "Why would you have sex with your family members? That's obviously disgusting and not worth it!", rather than recognizing that love sometimes occurs in such context, at which point prohibition is a significant burden on the people who might want to pursue a relationship.

Additionally, a lot of individuals online who seek advice or solidarity have to deal with an army of incest-fetishists who will harass them as a function of their own sexual fantasies, prying into their personal life's just because they get excited by it. So there is a degree of inappropriate sexualization of individuals who are in these types of relationships. There is a dehumanization occuring on both the level of righteous moralists who condemn such relationships and view individuals who participate in them as fundamentally deviant, as well as in the objectification of these sorts of relationships as a result of the fetishization.

Edited 18 hours ago by Scholar

[What Am I]

12 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It also shows that the main reason for why this moral norm is enforced culturally seems to be eugenics, given that there is a clear distinction made between step family incest and "real" incest, even though in terms of the ethical concerns, step family incest is probably more harmful than real incest, proportionately speaking, because step-family seem to be more likely to sexually abuse you than your regular family.

Ah, fascinating point, that's true.

14 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Additionally, a lot of individuals online who seek advice or solidarity have to deal with an army of incest-fetishists who will harass them as a function of their own sexual fantasies, prying into their personal life's just because they get excited by it. So there is a degree of inappropriate sexualization of individuals who are in these types of relationships. There is a dehumanization occuring on both the level of righteous moralists who condemn such relationships and view individuals who participate in them as fundamentally deviant, as well as in the objectification of these sorts of relationships as a result of the fetishization.

Man, you struck again in terms of presenting new concepts that opened different avenues in my mind, lol. That ability of yours to both create a lengthy stream of consciousness while also keeping it pertinent and insightful is pretty awesome indeed. Once again, you've lived up to your name.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

Ah, fascinating point, that's true.

Man, you struck again in terms of presenting new concepts that opened different avenues in my mind, lol. That ability of yours to both create a lengthy stream of consciousness while also keeping it pertinent and insightful is pretty awesome indeed. Once again, you've lived up to your name.

Well thank you, not a lot of people appreciate my rants.

[lostingenosmaze]

On 11/25/2024 at 1:38 PM, Leo Gura said:

Despite not wanting to I resonate with the Devil.

t. Leo Gura in his bootstrapping marketing years

[LordFall]

On 11/23/2024 at 2:22 PM, NoSelfSelf said:

To sum up they are pedophiles who groom underage girls,among other things.

When you bastardize someone's point, you dim the understanding.

The tate brothers have a great value proposition. Fuck society, build power and wealth and do right by yourself. A mix of stage orange and red. It's an extremely attractive value proposition to most men that feel disenfranchized.

The only greater value proposition really is that you should indeed indulge and fulfill your stage orange and red needs but remember that society is not your enemy. As a matter of fact it is your greatest ally. And you are a warrior build for greater understanding with limitless power and if you choose to do so you can not only become a powerful and well networked man but who's life purpose is also to help save, support and enlighten mankind.

Turning your back on society for some pussy and a bit of money is a hollow proposition with this viewpoint because you can have so much more. Infinitely more as a matter of fact. 

[NoSelfSelf]

@LordFall who knows what you talking about.