"My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline" Good video on internet radicalisation.

[now is forever]

1 minute ago, Andreas said:

Did not forget that, that's why I used it in quotation marks. I was implying the opposite. 

yeah but your quotationmarks, are no evidence that you understood it, it’s your sentence itself, that shows that you didn’t.

[Andreas]

4 minutes ago, now is forever said:

yeah but your quotationmarks, are no evidence that you understood it, it’s your sentence itself, that shows that you didn’t.

Why do you need "evidence" if I am straight up telling you that I understood the concept? 

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well in your context that is true. If I was not listening to you I would keep disagreeing with you while you hold the truth.

In my context it's just the opposite. You are not listening to me and this makes it challenging to get a point across. Constantly having to defend myself, not the meaning of my statements. 

I’ve spent over 25 years studying, researching and teaching genetics. I know this stuff and you don’t. I would love to help you. I’ve taught this to over 1,000 university students. Unfortunately you are unteachable due to several psychological dynamics you refuse to look at.

If you decide to attend a University, I strongly encourage you to work through this block or you will struggle at the University level

 

[Andreas]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’ve spent over 25 years studying, researching and teaching genetics. I know this stuff and you don’t. I would love to help you. I’ve taught this to over 1,000 university students. Unfortunately you are unteachable due to several psychological dynamics you refuse to look at.

If you decide to attend a University, I strongly encourage you to work through this block or you will struggle at at University level

 

Well I am sorry if you feel that way. This thread is not about me though. I was trying to make a point about actualized.org. If you don't want to address that directly then I am not interested in having you as my therapist. 

[now is forever]

15 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Why do you need "evidence" if I am straight up telling you that I understood the concept? 

well then you must show me, all other evidence speaks against it.

you are the person who is against blindly believing into anything - do you remember?

usually it’s the therapist who takes or doesn’t take a patient...especially if unpaid. well you could say a patrient chooses the therapist unknowingly the moment he starts searching.

Edited April 24, 2019 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Well I am sorry if you feel that way. This thread is not about me though. I was trying to make a point about actualized.org. If you don't want to address that directly then I am not interested in having you as my therapist. 

It’s not how I feel. It’s based on direct experience. As I’ve said, I’ve taught over 1,000 students. That is a large sample size. You are at the extreme end of closed-mindedness and it is the reason you haven’t learned anything in this discussion. You can avoid that if you wish, yet that will prevent you from learning and expanding your mind. 

You have attracted conflict with many people on the forum. The common denominator is. . . you.

[Andreas]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s not how I feel. It’s based on direct experience. As I’ve said, I’ve taught over 1,000 students. That is a large sample size. You are at the extreme end of closed-mindedness and it is the reason you haven’t learned anything in this discussion. You can avoid that if you wish, yet that will prevent you from learning and expanding your mind. 

You have attracted conflict with many people on the forum. The common denominator is. . . you.

The war of stigmatization. What I am trying to tell you is that Id like you to address my argument. Please? 

[purerogue]

23 minutes ago, Andreas said:

The war of stigmatization. What I am trying to tell you is that Id like you to address my argument. Please? 

What are you arguing about? 

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, purerogue said:

What are you arguing about? 

We were arguing about the limitations of how we give feedback on actualized.org. This turned into another argument about how to have an objective discussion. This turned into yet another argument about how we percieve what’s true. Finally it turned into an argument about me attempting to make an argument while someone else tried to focus on something they percieved as wrong in the way I was interpreting their opposing views. 

[Joseph Maynor]

23 minutes ago, Andreas said:

We were arguing about the limitations of how we give feedback on actualized.org. This turned into another argument about how to have an objective discussion. This turned into yet another argument about how we percieve what’s true. Finally it turned into an argument about me attempting to make an argument while someone else tried to focus on something they percieved as wrong in the way I was interpreting their opposing views. 

One tactic is to take the original argument/question and blow it up into 50 side-issues to confuse the original question/issue.  Certain people are adept at that.  I'm not saying the side-issues aren't important, but it can leave someone like you who is arguing with everyone at a disadvantage if you lose sight of the issue and/or control over the argument.  You get my props for hanging in there.  You'll learn something from this either way with all the hard work you put into it.  What you work hard on is what you'll improve.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Andreas]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

One tactic is to take the original argument/question and blow it up into 50 side-issues to confuse the original question/issue.  Certain people are adept at that.  I'm not saying the side-issues aren't important, but it can leave someone like you who is arguing with everyone at a disadvantage if you lose sight of the issue and/or control over the argument.  You get my props for hanging in there.  You'll learn something from this either way with all the hard work you put into it.  What you work hard on is what you'll improve.

Well my criticism has been interpreted in a lot of different ways. It makes it necessary to defend it in multiple ways. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way. But it can be hard to express oneself against 10 people strawmaning you at the same time. 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Leo-Gura’s-Actualized-org-a-scam

[purerogue]

47 minutes ago, Andreas said:

We were arguing about the limitations of how we give feedback on actualized.org. This turned into another argument about how to have an objective discussion. This turned into yet another argument about how we percieve what’s true. Finally it turned into an argument about me attempting to make an argument while someone else tried to focus on something they percieved as wrong in the way I was interpreting their opposing views. 

 

Quote

It's toxic femininity, trying to use the collective ego against individual people. That's all the left does, pure stigmatization. Toxic masculinity is direct attacks. Toxic femininity is just saying "look how bad this person is and what they do to me" and get other people to look down on them and attack them for them. Much lower risk. You see this bullshit everywhere today. No real arguments or facts.

I would not say that they are feminine or masculine ways, more prevalent might be true, but they are just ways how people act depending on situation

Things to note:

*Both use collective ego 

*Both twist your actions to suit their story where you are villain in their story. 

But it can be both male and female making them self as victim, just as them both can be using collective ego to bully you, or just make you look like person who is at wrong.

We can debate it if you do not agree, but you will find both actions in both groups, only difference that certain actions might be more common in one of two depending on circumstances.

Unfortunately I need quite some time to show why mathematics are relative and mostly tool, lot to go in on that topic   and I have to go off soon , we can leave it for later.

 

Did I miss something from discussion? 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by purerogue

[Andreas]

6 minutes ago, purerogue said:

 

I would not say that they are feminine or masculine ways, more prevalent might be true, but they are just ways how people act depending on situation

Things to note:

*Both use collective ego 

*Both twist your actions to suit their story where you are villain in their story. 

But it can be both male and female making them self as victim, just as them both can be using collective ego to bully you, or just make you look like person who is at wrong.

We can debate it if you do not agree, but you will find both actions in both groups, only difference that certain actions might be more common in one of two depending on circumstances.

Unfortunately I need quite some time to show why mathematics are relative and mostly tool, lot to go in on that topic   and I have to go of soon , we can leave it for later.

 

Did I miss something from discussion? 

 

We don’t need to agree on everything, just the stuff that is relevant for the discussion. I think the main difference is that toxic femininity is concerned with making you look like you are incompetent and inferior to make your points seem weaker while toxic masculinity is concerned with making yourself look superior and make people look up to you because your points seem stronger. 

They are just labels pointing at a deeper problem. I think the key takeaway here is trying to be more aware of this mechanism and how is uses your ego to suck you into all kinds of ideas. It is kind of like indoctrinating children into a christianity. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Andreas

[purerogue]

Just now, Andreas said:

We don’t need to agree on everything, just the stuff that is relevant for the discussion. I think the main difference is that toxic femininity is concerned with making you look like you are incompetent and inferior to make your points seem weaker while toxic masculinity is concerned with making yourself look superior and make people look up to you because your points seem stronger. 

They are just labels pointing at a deeper problem.

Sure you can label them like it.

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Andreas said:

What I am trying to tell you is that Id like you to address my argument. Please? 

I have. What I am trying to explain to you is not resonating with you.

[mandyjw]

2 hours ago, Andreas said:

We don’t need to agree on everything, just the stuff that is relevant for the discussion. I think the main difference is that toxic femininity is concerned with making you look like you are incompetent and inferior to make your points seem weaker while toxic masculinity is concerned with making yourself look superior and make people look up to you because your points seem stronger. 

They are just labels pointing at a deeper problem. I think the key takeaway here is trying to be more aware of this mechanism and how is uses your ego to suck you into all kinds of ideas. It is kind of like indoctrinating children into a christianity. 

All those qualities have negative and positive aspects, neither is good nor bad. You're right they become toxic when they are identified with. That's why we are all working to balance out, incorporate feminine and masculine qualities. If you are too masculine try playing the submissive role in conversation, if you're too feminine try out speaking with authority. 

Everyone here is indoctrinating someone into something. You have to be indoctrinated into Christianity and Devilry to become enlightened. That's nonduality. 

[Andreas]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I have. What I am trying to explain to you is not resonating with you.

You have most certainly not explained why my argument is wrong. Your entire strategy to preserve your ideology is based upon reducing my credibility which in return creates an illusion that my logical arguments are weaker. My prediction is that you are going to attempt to reduce my credibility once again because you fail to explain why you did not not argue in the realm of ethos while I was presenting original arguments in the realm of logos. My sense is that you do this again and again because your opposing views simply cannot be defended. There is your problem.

A deep contradiction to your argument is that you do not consider yourself being closeminded about me being closeminded, which I am trying to point at. This contradiction is of course irrational because it is in itself contradicting itself. But the reason I use this is an example is not to try to stigmatize you into blindly believing my opinion, but to attempt to show you the limitations of what I consider to be stigmatization, through reason. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Andreas

[Andreas]

2 hours ago, mandyjw said:

All those qualities have negative and positive aspects, neither is good nor bad. You're right they become toxic when they are identified with. That's why we are all working to balance out, incorporate feminine and masculine qualities. If you are too masculine try playing the submissive role in conversation, if you're too feminine try out speaking with authority. 

Everyone here is indoctrinating someone into something. You have to be indoctrinated into Christianity and Devilry to become enlightened. That's nonduality. 

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing good coming from stigmatizing the world because it is to "unconscious". The deeper irony is that what this forum is about is becoming critical of your own biases and opinions, yet they as the creators of this site, fail to do that with themselves. Once someone takes their advise to the degree of becoming critical of the creators own beliefs, it is of course because he or she is deeply unconscious or egotistical. I find this way of weaponizing the field of epistemology to be highly dysfunctional. 

 

[Key Elements]

 

10 hours ago, Andreas said:

I used the word "cultish" to try to refer to a spectrum, not the black and white definition of a cult.

Even though you were referring to a spectrum, the word "cult/cultish" refers to similarities, not differences. And, when I was talking to Leo, we were disagreeing. There were no similarities.

10 hours ago, Andreas said:

To me, your argument represented a general theme of what I call toxic femininity. 

I don't know how you came up with this topic (or theme). This was not even the topic. It's like you made it up. The main idea or theme of what I was trying to communicate with Leo was Spirial Dynamics and non-duality and how actualized.org could implement/teach these topics better.

[Forestluv]

@Andreas I understand your view. We are not connecting and resonating. I’m not suggesting you are less than me. We are on different frequencies. As if we are speaking two different languages.