Attention All! -- New, Stricter Quality Guidelines Now In Effect

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Forestluv I'm sorry. I took a quick overlook at your latest posts and didn't read them thoroughly. You don't seem to give any examples for the thing I'm asking about. For that reason I don't want to keep engaging with this discussion as you're probably defending some position with a dogmatic attitude. I've asked you twice to show me an example of a moderator disagreeing with Leo, or vice-versa. And I was generous and agreed with you that these kinds of disagreements are "tier 2" level. Yet, you never gave me even one example. For the last time, show me one example of such disagreements so that I may be able to see what I'm missing. Something like Ralston disagreeing on Love, or psychedelics. Otherwise I gotta apologize, and this discussion will be over.

C'mon. Notice the desire to set up two positions (that I am defending a position and have a dogmatic attitude) and framing then framing to either refute or support your position. An orange version of a Roman gladiator fight.

Notice how you are trying to define what counts as a "disagreement" in a Blue / Orange contextual frame. Why do you think you rarely see Mods / Leo disagreeing within your Blue / Orange framing?. . . think about it. . . To a Red level person, it only counts as a "disagreement" if there are death threats, physical violence and bloodshed. Wouldn't that seem odd to you?

10 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

But the point is that the disagreements have to be clear and not simply some relative multi-perspectival matters. There are things that are binary.

Moderators and Leo have disagreed with each other regarding dating and what women want in relationships. There ya go. Don't drag me into your vendetta on love and psychedelics.

[Gesundheit]

@Farnaby ?? Thank you. Exactly.

@Carl-Richard @Moon Not even once have I seen a moderator disagreeing in the way you're describing. But even that I wouldn't consider disagreement. I'm talking about something similar to Sadhguru's views on psychedelics, or Ralston's views on both love and psychedelics, etc... These kinds of things mods never disagree with Leo about. Notice these are just two examples. There is also politics. But the point is that the disagreements have to be clear and not simply some relative multi-perspectival matters. There are things that are binary. You can't say love is an absolute truth and reality is not love at the same time. You have to have an opinion, or remain silent. All mods seem to agree that reality is love. That's what I'm referring to here.

[Freakyboo]

Thanks Leo.

I took a long break from this forum because I got tired of it being littered with immature comments, ideologies and sexist/racist/discriminatory posts which are already all over the internet.

This is a positive step :).

 

[Gesundheit]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Moderators and Leo have disagreed with each other regarding dating and what women want in relationships. There ya go. 

Okay. I revoke your bot identity.

Looking back, I may have been a little bit too perfectionist. However, something about this still feels strange for me for some reasons, but I'm not going to continue with the discussion. For me now it's time for more contemplation.

Thanks for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience.

[Gidiot]

@diamondpenguin amen, as long as we have leadership and it doesn’t turn into a cult lmao

[zeroISinfinity]

Yeah I agree but guilty as charged. 

Commendable. Amen.

Edited September 14, 2020 by zeroISinfinity

[Consept]

@sholomar would you say a lot of people on here are extreme left? 

[sholomar]

 

14 minutes ago, Consept said:

@sholomar would you say a lot of people on here are extreme left? 

By definition there are a larger than normal number yes, though they are a much more polite, less hostile version than the ones you find on platforms like reddit. I try to have no bias at all and like to be the contrarian that pokes against the establishment viewpoint to get people to question the nature of their reality (masks for example) but it doesn't really do much because neither extreme will change their views, coming across opposition only makes them redouble their emotional attachment to their views, like a rebellious teenager doing the opposite of what their parents want.  

Honestly since I haven't spent enough time with you guys I'm not going to judge either way. I'm trying to extract myself off of screens anyways.. I don't want to be on them much more than an hour a day. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by sholomar

[lmfao]

@Gesundheit You're not wrong to feel there's "something strange" with how disagreements or discussion works. You're right that Mods usually agree with Leo.

For me, whatever angle you go about this stuff it will come back to topics like love, god and psychedelics (with ralston being a symbolic figure and good example in discussion). 

 

Here's the discussion I see being replayed. A: "You can become conscious of God"

B: "God is a word and concept, don't get attached".

I get a bit annoyed when one of those perspectives are called right and the other wrong.  Nobody making the points they should make. 

Some of the people who say B aren't and haven't been "conscious of God". And think its just a meaningless story. They just haven't seen that facet of things. 

However. Some of the people saying B are "conscious of God" but they know that this work is a continous process of discarding labels and entering not knowing. And they way you do that is to stop with the labels. 

But I see people advocating A failing or not mentioning the distinction between those two sorts of people in B. If that distinction was made there would be a lot less nonsense.

Some of the people in A know what is required for not knowing (even if they don't state this distinction) , but some people in A who don't understand this distinction will be stuck and stagnated. And they need to B to stop being stagnated. 

But instead of B being seen as an antidote that some people need, it's ignored and seen as delusional. And when that happens, you're in a belief system and couldn't be further from truth. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by lmfao

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Okay. I revoke your bot identity.

Looking back, I may have been a little bit too perfectionist. However, something about this still feels strange for me for some reasons, but I'm not going to continue with the discussion. For me now it's time for more contemplation.

Thanks for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience.

It’s good. We are all works in progress, including myself.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

 

@Carl-Richard @Moon Not even once have I seen a moderator disagreeing in the way you're describing.

Unlucky.

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, Farnaby said:

IMO if you don't want this to turn into a cult you should tolerate different opinions. Of course moderating insults, racism, troll posts and so on is a good idea but banning people because they don't agree that everything is Love... How is that different from cult/mass thinking?

Imagine that you are on a bodybuilding forum and all you want to talk about is how bodybuilding is bullshit and a waste of time. If they choose to ban you for that, is it a cult?

[DrewNows]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine that you are on a bodybuilding forum and all you want to talk about is how bodybuilding is bullshit and a waste of time. If they choose to ban you for that, is it a cult?

I could only see this occurring if all other forums discussing the bullshit of bodybuilding we’re shut down. This is what happens here, no discussions of “low conscious” topics Leo deems to be dangerous, either because they are illogical, or below what he sees fit. My opinion is these restrictions are nothing but a subtle coping mechanism used to avoid “lower conscious” shadow aspects, aka judgments, and all they appease is comfort/safety and perhaps the idea of progression 

 

[Consept]

34 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

I could only see this occurring if all other forums discussing the bullshit of bodybuilding we’re shut down. This is what happens here, no discussions of “low conscious” topics Leo deems to be dangerous, either because they are illogical, or below what he sees fit. My opinion is these restrictions are nothing but a subtle coping mechanism used to avoid “lower conscious” shadow aspects, aka judgments, and all they appease is comfort/safety and perhaps the idea of progression 

 

So do you think it should be completely free here where anyone can discuss anything? 

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

I could only see this occurring if all other forums discussing the bullshit of bodybuilding we’re shut down.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

 

35 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

This is what happens here, no discussions of “low conscious” topics Leo deems to be dangerous, either because they are illogical, or below what he sees fit.

Yes. This is a high consciousness forum. If you're providing nothing but low consciousness, then you're anti- high consciousness. If you come to a bodybuilding forum with an anti-bodybuilding attitude, you should expect to be shut down.

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes. This is a high consciousness forum. If you're providing nothing but low consciousness, then you're anti- high consciousness. If you come to a bodybuilding forum with an anti-bodybuilding attitude, you should expect to be shut down.

To further extend your analogy its like if someone goes on a bodybuilding forum and is really pro-cardio and thinks that those that disagree are pushing a body building narrative. Then if they are banned or no one agrees with them, they complain that alternative viewpoints are not allowed on this body building forum 

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

To further extend your analogy its like if someone goes on a bodybuilding forum and is really pro-cardio and thinks that those that disagree are pushing a body building narrative. Then if they are banned or no one agrees with them, they complain that alternative viewpoints are not allowed on this body building forum 

In other words, bodybuilding forums exist with a specific goal in mind: to help people pursue bodybuilding. Cardio training is actually in some cases bad for overall muscle growth.

If the pro-cardio person gets shut down, it's not necessarily because cardio is a worthless pursuit in itself, but it's because it's not helpful for building muscle. This forum is about increasing consciousness, and only the leaders of the forum can decide what that really means.

Any forum with a goal must itself define what the goal entails and what things are detrimental to that goal and how this applies to the moderation of its content. If you want a "free speech" forum where anything goes, then you should seek out such a place (by the way, it doesn't exist).

Edited September 14, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[DrewNows]

37 minutes ago, Consept said:

So do you think it should be completely free here where anyone can discuss anything? 

Yes as long as it doesn’t break the rules not those of Leo’s beliefs regarding low and high consciousness topics, like spamming, etc. 

In regards to all topics of discussion on the forum it is possible to see the good without the bad (desire), the bad without the good (fear), and both together as one (love).

A “high conscious” forum allows control to be put into the hands of divine order. It is easy to assume content dictates level of consciousness but that’s not necessarily the case. People cannot he saved from “low-conscious” traps

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I mean nobody goes to a bodybuilding forum to attack bodybuilders unless they are seeking some kind of revenge. if they aren’t there to attack then they’d probably create a forum open to their views to express, dissect and expose the dangers or views they deem bullshit in relation to bodybuilding. A high conscious bodybuilding forum would allow the pros and cons to be discussed 

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes. This is a high consciousness forum. If you're providing nothing but low consciousness, then you're anti- high consciousness. If you come to a bodybuilding forum with an anti-bodybuilding attitude, you should expect to be shut down.

Perception dictates level of consciousness, not the content. Let’s say there’s a thread leo views to be a distraction, and he makes the judgment to assume it’s a distraction for anyone on his forum, does this come off as a very “high conscious” attitude and openness? Surely not, whether I agree with his assessment or not, it’s tyrannical 

 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Yes as long as it doesn’t break the rules not those of Leo’s beliefs regarding low and high consciousness topics, like spamming, etc. 

In regards to all topics of discussion on the forum it is possible to see the good without the bad (desire), the bad without the good (fear), and both together as one (love).

A “high conscious” forum allows control to be put into the hands of divine order. It is easy to assume content dictates level of consciousness but that’s not necessarily the case. People cannot he saved from “low-conscious” traps

Can you point to any examples of a completely free speech forum, that follows the criteria you've set out? 

[DrewNows]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

Can you point to any examples of a completely free speech forum, that follows the criteria you've set out? 

Before censorship this year, YouTube used to be a pretty good example. Free speech within guidelines is important in my opinion

A forum on consciousness work could be less occupied by judgement 

Edited September 14, 2020 by DrewNows