Libertarian Cringe

[Bno]

@Raptorsin7 Love, joy, peace, determination. I find more meaning now.

[Raptorsin7]

@Bno Wow very cool. Good luck.

 

[diamondpenguin]

@Leo Gura I know this may be off topic. Sorry about that. But Leo I just want to thank you for everything you have done and the person you are because if it wasn't for you I wouldn't be pursuing my passion and getting my degree or growing myself. When I was meditating last night 2 hours before I went to sleep after watching your video on "contemplating your own death". About 20 minutes in it hit me for about 2 seconds that all there is here is god and that I was really alone as one being. That I'm not in the slightest who I think i am. It gave me some sort of chills of joy. I then began to seem a lot more in tune with everything that is going on around me. Then I woke up today feeling inspired with the world seeming to give off this magical aura that I can't seem to grasp. I dont know if you know more of what is going on but I just like to share my experiences. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by diamondpenguin

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv I hope you can understand why I state fallacies in people like Sedar and TYT and why it might seem like an attachment as what @Leo Gura perceives in me. As a biologist, I appreciate nature very deeply even before studying it in academia. I was relieved and vindicated when I learned nature and the ecosystem I interact with is still me, better said: Me or My Self.

I may be preaching to the choir here, but there is an urgency to turn this climate crisis around. In ecology, there is still much to understand about our biodiversity that we are highly likely underestimating the damages that will occur if we do not act now with absolutely no middle ground at all, i.e., no corporate capitulation that'll continue to damage our environment.

With that being said, in order to solve these problems we need to know who is truly on our side, sticks to facts and the has least amount of hypocrisy in order to gain the cooperation of the powers that can proceed to the systemic changes that need to be done to save the planet. We need the most conscious voices. Pundits who are hypocrites will not help with transitioning other people to higher levels of consciousness nearly as much as people who understand what is truly going on.

For example, the example you brought up about Maddow. She might help transition some people from stage blue to orange, but it's a negligible amount and it's more likely that there'll be resistance from stage blue people who will see through a lot of her bullshit and resist the transition. The same is true for people like Sedar and TYT, they are full of hypocrisy and ignore several facts because of their biases, which then causes many stage orange and blue people to resist transitioning to higher levels of consciousness.

On the other hand, we have the more systemic thinkers. We have people like Jimmy Dore, Niko House, Kyle Kulinski, Fiorella Isabel, etc. who understand the reasons why stage blue people are angry with their situations. They understand why they are allocating their anger towards the wrong people like minorities for example. Rather than distract from this issue by discussing ridiculous narratives like russigate which are based on little evidence and causing more resistance to transcend, they stick to the REAL ISSUES that matter to these people: ending the corrupt finance system in our politics, increasing wages, better healthcare programs, increasing regulations on corporations. Speaking to these people about these issues helps people put aside some of their stage blue mentalities (like anti-abortion or anti-LGBT) aside for a bit for a cause that is more important to them. 

After gaining the trust of systemic thinkers  who understand their problems, they are less resistant for transcending to higher levels of consciousness. I have seen it happen. I have seen many former conservatives gain support and trust to politicians like Bernie Sanders or journalists like Niko House and Jimmy Dore. Some are still conservatives but still support the cause of these systemic thinkers. The thing right now is that many of the stage yellow voices are being suppressed and conservatives or stage blue people have this false belief that every liberal is a stage green hypocrite like MSNBC or TYT. Then many stage green liberals have this false notion that in order to progress is to attack Trump and conservatives every chance they get, as if everything they do is automatically bad (Trump derangement syndrome).

I hope this makes sense. What I'm basically trying to say here is: stage green political mentalities with unhealthy unconscious biases distract from the important issues that help people transcend to higher stages. Stage yellow political mentalities are more understanding and better at spreading higher levels of consciousness, they can even potentially help transform stage green political thinkers to stage yellow. 

Another thing, I think Leo is stage turquoise when it comes to some aspects of spirituality, but when it comes to political systems thinking he is stuck at stage green. That's why he gets so angry at stage orange and especially stage blue people and disagrees a lot with stage yellow political thinkers. For example, he thought Warren was a progressive this whole time and ignored Tulsi Gabbard despite her progressive record that I shared with him (idk if he acknowledged it). And the result of Leo's political thinking is because he got his news from people like TYT and Sam Sedar ?.

Anyway, I still thank Leo for everything else he has done. My life has definitely benefited from this work. I just think there needs to be more political consciousness from people especially in this forum in order to save the planet which is part of the Self. Staying comfortable with Trump derangement syndrome and being misinformed by only listening to unhealthy stage green pundits will not help.

The reason for our demise, if we do die in a climate crisis, will be because we refused to acknowledge egoic blindspots. We thought we were so enlightened with spiritual work that we forgot to transcend how we think politically and systematically. We forgot that this was the key to not only transforming our consciousness, but society's.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Bno

[Bno]

TYT and Sam Sedar were important in 2016 to help people transcend into a more conscious political mindset and awareness until people noticed their blindspots and hypocrisies when they told people to back Hillary Clinton despite her and the DNC's blatant cheating of Bernie Sanders. They did that instead of standing up for election integrity. That's why I say it's democracy first, the progressive movement second, and your preferred candidate third when it comes to conscious values.

Having her as president would've prolonged awakening to corruption and the disasters destroying the planet since she capitulates with corporations in a more secretive way. At least the sense of urgency for change under a Trump presidency is more ostensible.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Bno

[randomguy123]

#neofeudalism

[Apparition of Jack]

@Bno Dude, EVERYONE is a hypocrite. EVERYONE. Even Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite.

The point is not to demand ideological purity. The point is to demand the best possible outcome with the tools we have to us. If you demanded that everyone you ally with never do anything underhanded or hypocritical in their lifetime, you'd be left with exactly 0 allies.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Bno]

@Apparition of Jack Indeed we all do have a level of hypocrisy, it is not black and white. However, my point was about people with lower conscious levels having more blatant hypocrisies that can cause repulsion from people with at one or two lower conscious levels that would've otherwise transcended if they were listening to a stage yellow political pundit that was more understanding of their problems. They have high levels of unchecked biases that cause them to be counterproductive to their goals.

I also never said they aren't allies (overall), just that they often work against their own interests and goals because of unchecked biases that you don't see in more systemic thinkers. 

For example, TYT and the likes of Mike Figueredo and David Doel smearing Tulsi Gabbard and purposely ignoring her progressive record and platform goes against their interest of progressivism and helping Bernie Sanders. They thought that unfairly attacking her was going to help Bernie. It's so myopic and counterproductive. This needs to be brought to people's awareness not for infighting but for realization and improvement. Can people here acknowledge this counterproductiveness? 

How can I have some people here understand that what I'm doing is not to cause any infighting but to engender improvement? It's constructive criticism.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Bno

[Apparition of Jack]

@Bno I don't know what to say dude. Your concerns have like 30% truth to them but then 70% hair splitting. Yes, it might make sense for progressive voices not to go after Tulsi Gabbard too hard if they want her supporters to vote for Bernie, but she is such an obscure and unknown figure in the first place that making sure her supporters are on board with Bernie is like a British war cabinet minister worrying about if British communists were on board in the fight against the Hitler when he invaded Poland in 1939. It's just so low on the list of things that could be worried about at such a time when so many other resources are at their disposal. 

If you're a devoted Tulsi supporter, so be it, but just from my perspective to yours, she's really not that big of a deal, and Green progressive causes could be much better served by focusing on spreading information about Bernie's policies, making sure reactionaries and corporate centirsts don't control the conversation, and so on. I am trying to be respectful here, I still agree with like 90% of what you say, I just wish you could see things from a bigger perspective.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Forestluv]

21 hours ago, Bno said:

@Serotoninluv I hope you can understand why I state fallacies in people like Sedar and TYT and why it might seem like an attachment as what @Leo Gura perceives in me. 

On the other hand, we have the more systemic thinkers. We have people like Jimmy Dore, Niko House, Kyle Kulinski, Fiorella Isabel, etc. who understand the reasons why stage blue people are angry with their situations. They understand why they are allocating their anger towards the wrong people like minorities for example. Rather than distract from this issue by discussing ridiculous narratives like russigate which are based on little evidence and causing more resistance to transcend, they stick to the REAL ISSUES that matter to these people: ending the corrupt finance system in our politics, increasing wages, better healthcare programs, increasing regulations on corporations. Speaking to these people about these issues helps people put aside some of their stage blue mentalities (like anti-abortion or anti-LGBT) aside for a bit for a cause that is more important to them. 

One aspect of Yellow is systemic thinking. Another aspect of Yellow is the ability to see relativity and partial truths. Including being aware of the relativity of one's own perspective. This allows for viewing multiple perspectives, without tightly holding any one perspective. This in turn allows for a form of fluidity which allows seeing partial truths in various perspectives and the integration of various components into a holistic view. What good is a systemic perspective if I believe that one systemic perspective is objectively and universally true? This would be a highly contracted view.

This is just one view that is appearing to me. You seem to tightly hold certain content and perceive through a particular lens. This creates an "either / or" filter of perception. Not allows, yet sometimes. For example, you appear to have a strong attachment to a "Russiagate" narrative and perceive through that narrative. You seem to hold it as a binary construct in that "Russiagate" is a complete hoax and that anyone who sees any validity in this "Russiagate" hoax is not a true progressive and distracting from "real issues". You also seem to have a hard binary construct of what is a "real issue" vs "a not real issue". This binary construct and attachment is so strong you even put REAL ISSUES in ALL CAPS.  This mindset is highly contracted and will influence how one interprets their reality. With this mindset, if I see a person discuss concern about Trump's relationship with Russia and Russian interference, I will categorize this person as being a "Russiagate" believer who is not a true progressive and is distracting people from the REAL ISSUES. I will now perceive this person as part of the "problem". Yet part of this "problem" is the attachment to a narrative I have created.

You seem to relate to things like "Russiagate" as being objectively true. This is an assumption I don't think you are aware of. Part of Yellow is to see that any perspective that arises in our mind is relative and any perspective has partial truth and partial falsehood. In previous threads, people have tried to state some evidence and truth of Trump's relations to Russia and Russian interference. Yet you take an extremely strong stance against this argue against it. Did some people overblow and embellish aspects of Trump and Russia interference? Of course, yet this does not mean that there is not underlying truth and concern. You mention that you are interested in biology. A similar dynamic is when I scientist overstates their claim. For example, an oncologist may conduct research and discover a link between high fructose corn syrup and cancer. He may claim that "Artificial sweetener causes cancer!! We need to fund this research and ban artificial sugar". We could divide this into two camps people who believe the "Sweetener causes cancer" story or the "Sweetener Cancer Hoax". Anyone that sees validity or concern with artificial sweeteners is now in the "Sweetener Hoax" camp that is not a true scientist and is distracting from the REAL ISSUES of science. Are there some scientists that overstate claims? Yes. It happens all the time. Yet that does not mean there is no underlying truth. Perhaps the oncologist did studies on mice and mice exposed to sweetener had a 30% increase in cancer. Well, this isn't quite as dramatic as the oncologist's claims, yet it is substantial. It is worthy of concern and further research - and many would consider it a real issue.

There are many different issues progressives care about. Not all progressive will have the same value hierarchy as you. Progressive issues include racial, gender and LGBTQ inclusion and equality. Other issues include climate change. There is also wealth inequality, corporate corruption and campaign finance issues. There is also M4A, election integrity and maintaining democracy. These issues have distinctions and they are all inter-related. Some progressives will prioritize certain issues. For example, a gay person who has suffered marginalization and stigmatization may prioritize gender and LGBTQ equality. A person who lives in a part of ohio devastated by the opiod crisis may prioritize M4A and regulating toxic corporations. A biologist may prioritize climate change. A historian that understands how democracies gradually erode may prioritized election integrity. I can see all of these issues and the relative priorities of each. For example, I can see a strong argument why progressives should prioritize election integrity. This is a fundamental grounding for democracy and the strongest resistance to authoritarianism and fascism. I can see how a progressive could consider election integrity to be a real issue and have deep concerns about foreign interference with involving countries like Russia and the Ukraine. If election integrity and democracy decays, good like fighting for issues like M4A, LGBTQ equality and climate change initiatives. 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv The reason why I bring up Russiagate is not to discuss weather its black or white true or false, but that the vast majority of people do not care and that discussing it was indeed counterproductive and distracting from issues that would more effectively hurt Trump. The people we need to win over also do not care.

I still to this day do not know what evidence you have found that suggests that Russia has leverage on Trump. What politcally stage yellow people see is that there is overwhelmingly more evidence that goes against the notion that they had leverage, especially with the most recent and shocking assassination of General Soleimani. Iran is Russia's ally. I gave you so much evidence a couple weeks ago too. The "truth" that you see and have told me is overwhelmingly overshadowed by all the evidence I listed to you a couple of weeks ago and what continues to happen to this day.

A systemic thinker can tap into the perspective of the major groups impacting the decision for our new president and the acceptance of the Russiagate narrative:

the poor conservative that wants his/her financial situation to improve and thought Trump would be better than a neoliberal politician like Clinton because he's an outsider and was offering them something; they are generally skeptical of MSM narratives

the Trump sycophant who will just get angry at the media's claims of Trump being a Russian puppet, so they want to support Trump even harder

the middle class centrist that trusts the mainstream media and were going to vote against Trump anyway 

the politicaly stage green progressives that uncritically trust TYT and believe Trump is a Russian asset or has been infiltrated 

the politically higher stage green or stage yellow progressive that critically questioned MSM and TYT analyses of the situation and looked at more facts that both outlets were ignoring

the CIA/FBI and MIC lobbyists and CEOs that saw this as an opportunity to make more money by portraying Russia as a dangerous enemy, regardless of whether it's true or not; these stage orange individuals are out for themselves and have been shown throughout history to manipulate public thinking for their own benefits

the Democratic and Republican politicians that succumb to partisan theatrics on purpose (by corporate Dems or Republicans) or unknowingly (by Justice Dems and Bernie Sanders)

It is true that different progressives care more about different issues. However, the effectiveness of this strategy that people like TYT use to attack Trump no matter what and damn the opposing evidence will not effectively win over the votes of former Trump voters or people who stayed home and we've seen it misinform a vast number of people on our side. Such tactics keeps people divided.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Bno

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Serotoninluv The reason why I bring up Russiagate is not to discuss weather its black or white true or false, but that the vast majority of people do not care and that discussing it was indeed counterproductive and distracting from issues that would more effectively hurt Trump. The people we need to win over also do not care.

I'm not pointing to one set of content. I'm pointing to a variety of content. Is there a context in which there is a strategy to hurt Trump politically by associating him to Russia and Russian interference? Yes. Is this the best political strategy to harm Trump? Probably not. As you say, most people do not care. This is one set of content. Another set of content is the actuality of Trump-Russia relations and foreign government interference into US elections. This is a different issue. It doesn't matter if people care or not in this context. Let's assume that any mention of Trump, Putin and Russia in the same sentence helps Trump. That does not mean that there is no underlying threat to election integrity. It just means that it's not politically helpful in harming a political adversary. 

22 minutes ago, Bno said:

I still to this day do not know what evidence you have found that suggests that Russia has leverage on Trump.

The reason you don't know is because you are attached to a particular narrative and not open to seeing underlying threats Russian interference can take. With this lens, all evidence will be dismissed or recontextualized to be consistent with this lens. As long as you are wearing this lens, it does no good showing you any evidence of Trump-Russia relations or Russian interference. You will dismiss it one way or another.

 This isn't a content issue. The content doesn't matter. The content could be sports, Trump, Russia, airplanes or toasters. It is a structure issue. The structure of forming, holding and being attached to a perspective.

27 minutes ago, Bno said:

What politcally stage yellow people see is that there is overwhelmingly more evidence that goes against the notion that they had leverage

Notice how you are trying to define what "politically stage yellow" people see. Conveniently, what politically stage yellow people are seeing just happens to be what you are seeing. What a coincidence!! What if I told you that there are politically stage yellow people that do not hold the same view as you. Politically stage yellow people can hold multiple views. They are not attached to any view. They can see the relativity and partial truths in each view. 

30 minutes ago, Bno said:

I gave you so much evidence a couple weeks ago too. The "truth" that you see and have told me is overwhelmingly overshadowed by all the evidence I listed to you a couple of weeks ago and what continues to happen to this day.

Again, I am not pointing to content. I am not disagreeing with you. I am not saying that Russia-Putin has 100% control over Trump and Trump is merely a puppet. This is what I mean by black and white thinking. It is much more nuanced than this. There is partial truths in several perspectives. There can be aspects in which Russia can exert influence and aspects in which Russia cannot exert sufficient influence. There are competing factors influencing Trumps behavior. Yet one will not be able to see this if they are locked into one view as being the "one and only correct" view. 

33 minutes ago, Bno said:

A systemic thinker can tap into the perspective of the major groups impacting the decision for our new president and the acceptance of the Russiagate narrative:

the poor conservative that wants his/her financial situation to improve and thought Trump would be better than a neoliberal politician like Clinton because he's an outsider and was offering them something; they are generally skeptical of MSM narratives

the Trump sycophant who will just get angry at the media's claims of Trump being a Russian puppet, so they want to support Trump even harder

the middle class centrist that trusts the mainstream media and were going to vote against Trump anyway 

the politicaly stage green progressives that uncritically trust TYT and believe Trump is a Russian asset or has been infiltrated 

the politically higher stage green or stage yellow progressive that critically questioned MSM and TYT analyses of the situation and looked at more facts that both outlets were ignoring

the CIA/FBI and MIC lobbyists and CEOs that saw this as an opportunity to make more money by portraying Russia as a dangerous enemy, regardless of whether it's true or not; these stage orange individuals are out for themselves and have been shown throughout history to manipulate public thinking for their own benefits

the Democratic and Republican politicians that succumb to partisan theatrics on purpose (by corporate Dems or Republicans) or unknowingly (by Justice Dems and Bernie Sanders)

Of course these are all factors. I am not saying this is false. I am not saying this does not have relevance. I am saying that you appear to have attachment to a particular narrative. I am not saying that that narrative is completely false. I think there is a lot of value in it. However, I also think there is value you are missing because you are locked into a paradigm.

36 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Serotoninluv

It is true that different progressives care more about different issues. However, the effectiveness of this strategy that people like TYT use to attack Trump no matter what and damn the opposing evidence will not effectively win over the votes of former Trump voters or people who stayed home and we've seen it misinform a vast number of people on our side. Such tactics keeps people divided.

Part of the issue here is assumptions, biased declarations of what counts as truth and evidence. This will lead to categorizing people that are seeing other partial truths as a problem. Also, there is a distinction between what is politically beneficial and what is fundamentally beneficial.

For example, let's say that creating a chicken with Trump's head on it damages Trump politically. People associate Trump to being a chicken and he loses independents and then the election. That is politically advantageous, yet there is no underlying substance to parading a Trump chicken around to all his rallies. . . Let's say that Trump wants to ban minorities to voting. Yet if we reveal this, it will rally his base, Trump will get massive turnout and win the election. Politically, it would be disadvantageous to push this narrative since it is politically advantageous to Trump. However, there is underlying substance and concern. In this context, it would be best to work on the down-low. It would be best to let progressives know whats going on and creating a resistance - yet not going full mainstream media on it. Similarly, if the Russia / Ukraine story is advantageous to Trump, it does not mean that there is no underlying substance and concern regarding election integrity. It may be best to keep the situation on the down-low and organize resistance under the radar of the mainstream media. 

Whether a situation is beneficial to Trump and whether a situation has fundamental substance, concern and threat are two different issues. A problem can arise when the two are conflated. This will distort looking at a situation from multiple perspectives clearly. For example, the highest level national security, fbi, cia and diplomats are not primarily concerned with whether a situation will help or harm Trump - they are primarily focused on whether a situation poses a fundamentally threat to the US and election integrity. This allows them to perceive through a lens that is not distorted by whether something will help or hurt Trump.

 

[Bno]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm not pointing to one set of content. I'm pointing to a variety of content. Is there a context in which there is a strategy to hurt Trump politically by associating him to Russia and Russian interference? Yes. Is this the best political strategy to harm Trump? Probably not. As you say, most people do not care. This is one set of content. Another set of content is the actuality of Trump-Russia relations and foreign government interference into US elections. This is a different issue. It doesn't matter if people care or not in this context. Let's assume that any mention of Trump, Putin and Russia in the same sentence helps Trump. That does not mean that there is no underlying threat to election integrity. It just means that it's not politically helpful in harming a political adversary. 

The reason you don't know is because you are attached to a particular narrative and not open to seeing underlying threats Russian interference can take. With this lens, all evidence will be dismissed or recontextualized to be consistent with this lens. As long as you are wearing this lens, it does no good showing you any evidence of Trump-Russia relations or Russian interference. You will dismiss it one way or another.

 This isn't a content issue. The content doesn't matter. The content could be sports, Trump, Russia, airplanes or toasters. It is Similarly, if the Russia / Ukraine story is advantageous to Trump, it does not mean that there is no underlying substance and concern regarding election integrity. It may be best to keep the situation on the down-low and organize resistance under the radar of the mainstream media. 

Whether a situation is beneficial to Trump and whether a situation has fundamental substance, concern and threat are two different issues. A problem can arise when the two are conflated. This will distort looking at a situation from multiple perspectives clearly. For example, the highest level national security, fbi, cia and diplomats are not primarily concerned with whether a situation will help or harm Trump - they are primarily focused on whether a situation poses a fundamentally threat to the US and election integrity. This allows them to perceive through a lens that is not distorted by whether something will help or hurt Trump.

 

Election integrity is definitely a concern. However, the vast majority of people aren't as afraid of foreign governments interfering as they are of domestic powers interfering since there is more reliable evidence supporting the concern for the latter. Regardless, precautions need to be taken to prevent both from happening but that's not what the main MSM and political instigators of this issue are trying  to do. Instead of taking measures to secure American elections, they are trying to find anything to portray Trump as a Russian asset. Would you agree that since nothing significant has come out to suggest he is a Russian asset that the more productive thing to do is to promote solutions to prevent any future interferences to pur elections?

[Bno]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

The reason you don't know is because you are attached to a particular narrative and not open to seeing underlying threats Russian interference can take. With this lens, all evidence will be dismissed or recontextualized to be consistent with this lens. As long as you are wearing this lens, it does no good showing you any evidence of Trump-Russia relations or Russian interference. You will dismiss it one way or another.

You haven't given me any evidence. I'm open to hearing the evidence that there is leverage on him but you have yet to inform me what it is. And this isn't just me, other people in our other discussion were also asking you.

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Bno said:

Election integrity is definitely a concern. However, the vast majority of people aren't as afraid of foreign governments interfering as they are of domestic powers interfering since there is more reliable evidence supporting the concern for the latter. Regardless, precautions need to be taken to prevent both from happening 

I would agree with this. On balance, I would say domestic election interference is more of a concern. For example, corporate finance of campaigns and voter suppression is largely domestic influences.

5 hours ago, Bno said:

but that's not what the main MSM and political instigators of this issue are trying  to do. Instead of taking measures to secure American elections, they are trying to find anything to portray Trump as a Russian asset. 

Here is where I would say it's a mixed bag and you are attached too tightly on one side. There are some with the intention of portraying Trump as a Russian asset for political gain. And there are some that are genuinely trying to get to the root of the problem and help to secure American elections. People like Mueller and Fiona Hill are not democrat hacks trying to portray Trump as a Russian stooge. . . As well, there have been bills passed in the House of Reps designed to protect American elections from foreign interference. Yet, McConnell will not allow a vote on the bill. There are some house reps genuinely trying to secure the integrity of US elections. Reps like Rho Khanna are not motivated to push false narratives to make Trump look like a Russian asset.

I can see both forces - some wanting to use any story to harm Trump politically and some that want to get to the root of the interference. As well, I'm sure there are some Russian asset stories that are false, some that are partially true and some that are true. To me, you seem attached to one narrative and are not open to seeing nuances. 

5 hours ago, Bno said:

Would you agree that since nothing significant has come out to suggest he is a Russian asset that the more productive thing to do is to promote solutions to prevent any future interferences to pur elections?

A nice way to sneak in an assumption and ask a question based on the assumption. I don't accept that assumption and the premise of your question and therefore cannot answer it. 

4 hours ago, Bno said:

You haven't given me any evidence. I'm open to hearing the evidence that there is leverage on him but you have yet to inform me what it is. 

To me, you don't seem genuinely open and fluid. Everyone says they are "open-minded". This is one of the traps of having mental filters - there is lack of awareness of one's own filter. 

Open-minded is allowing space for exploration. It means not having attachment to any one theory. To me, you seem hyper immersed in content and are not aware of structure. For example, one could consider Trump's financial ties to Russia. Yet my impression is that you have attachment to a filter that will dismiss this as irrelevant or a nonfactor in one way or another.

Again, I am not taking a position opposite to yours. I think you make a lot of good points and some of your points I hadn't considered. I've contemplated them and I've explored new theories. I'm not attached to a binary theory of "this vs that". I like to explore nuances. To me, you seem to be in a debate mode, rather than an exploratory mode of curiosity and expansion. 

An exploring-oriented person that comes to mind is Steven Kotler and his relationship to conscious flow states. To me, the guy has an exploratory mindset. He is not attached to any one theory about flow states. He can hold multiple theories. He can integrate and de-integrate theories. His conversations are fluid. He is not attached to ideologies of science, metaphysics, intuition, or energetics. He can flow from discussing scientific perspectives of flow states, yogic perspectives, intellectual constructs, direct experience, physical and non-physical evidence, drug-induced states, sober states. . . and on and on,. This is a very different energetic orientation than someone attached to one theory of flow states and wants to debate people with opposing theories of flow states. To me, you are so immersed in the content, you are unaware of the structure. 

Another way of looking at structure: Imagine discussing Harrison Ford's character. One can be so immersed into Indiana Jones that they think Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. They may interpret all information through a lens of Indiana Jones. That movie is the content. The structure is that Indiana Jones was a movie created on a movie set. Harrison Ford was an actor that played many different roles in many different movies. . . Yet a person immersed into Indiana Jones will not be aware of this. If someone says "Let's talk about Harrison Ford's character as Blade Runner. Let's consider the similarities between the characters Indiana Jones and Blade Runner". The person would be like "Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. Show me evidence from the movie Indiana Jones that Harrison Ford is not Indiana Jones". This mind is hyper immersed into content and all information goes through a filter of the Indiana Jones movie. 

I'm not saying that all of your views are wrong. To me, you seem immersed in content and are missing a lot of nuances. For example, you wouldn't be open to discussing the nuances of Harrison Ford's acting career because you are immersed and attached Harrison Ford being Indiana Jones in that movie. 

 

 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv Look man, it feels like I keep having to repeat myself lol. I've said this to you before. If information came out that shows Russia had leverage on Trump and all the actions he commits against his geopolitical interest was part of some master plan, then I will accept it. The reason why I have counter-arguments is because I'm aware of the information, it's not dogma, I'm just telling you what is known. Everything im going to tell you in the following paragraphs I've said to you before.

Mueller was one of the people who lied to us about WMDs in Iraq and got us into war. Fiona Hill was only simply known for being at the Brookings Institute and writing a book-length attack on Vladimir Putin before she was hired to be the Russian expert of this investigation, this is a conflict of interest. She also had ties with Christopher Steel and other Clinton staffers. They also do not disclose any specific evidence to the public about how they "know for sure Russia interfered and are trying to interfere." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. How about we try to secure our elections anyway? Our corporatist leaders arent committing themselves to solving this issue, which shows that they aren't serious and are only interested in partisan theatrics.

Once again, the Clintons and their Foundation also have financial ties with the Russian government and Trump has financial ties with so many other countries besides Russia. This is not ne being attached to a particular narrative, this is the information that is publicly known. 

Trump, for the idk how many nth time I've told you, has committed so many geopolitical acts that would've gotten his dirt exposed if they truly had leverage on him. Putin and the Russians are not happy with him putting sanctions on his country and committing acts of war and installing coups on so many of his allies. 

It's pretty blatant that you're the one with the attachment on a narrative that has so many literal events that contradict it. I will abandon the notion that Trump is not a Russian asset if there was more information to suggest it. I am by no means attached.

They've already done a deep investigation. Now it's time to find solutions to election integrity. Continuously calling people Russian assets, even calling Trump a Russian asset, is modern day Mccarthyism.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Bno

[Forestluv]

@Bno I'm unable to connect with you on what I want to communicate. To me, you seem so immersed in content that the content can no longer be freely explored. I think a meta view of the structure of the content would be helpful. . . . That's just my impression - perhaps it has value, perhaps it does not have value. All value is relative. If it doesn't resonate with you, feel free to trash it. 

I think you make a lot of good points and I appreciate your passion to move toward a better America. Yet we aren't on the same frequency and you don't seem interested in exploring what I'd like to explore. That's fine, it happens. 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv I will say I feel like I need to work on not sounding so attached to some issues. It has potential to lead to distractions. I'm going to have to continue to practice more meditation and mindfulness to prevent groundlesness and promote serenity.

[Apparition of Jack]

@Bno Let me ask you something Bno... what evidence would convince you that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election and that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? What does this evidence look like to you?

[Leo Gura]

Russian interference is obvious. The only question is to what extent, and collusion is still a iffy, but certainly within the realm of possibility. If Trump had the chance he'd certainly do it. His only defense might be that he was too incompetent to coordinate something like that.