I enjoyed your article but have to take issue with your opening statement “What the f*ck is wrong with everyone?” It’s not everyone, the insanity is overwhelming coming from one side. That side has dehumanized anyone who doesn’t think like them to the point of using assassination to silence them. That side cheers gleefully at the cold blooded murder of husband and father. Ironically, the side that calls people ’Hitler’ are themselves behaving just like Hitler did.
’m horrified by Charlie Kirk’s killing and by anyone suggesting he “deserved” it. But claiming this is overwhelmingly coming from one side is not only unequivocally false but deepens the divide of "us vs them". Trump has repeatedly used dehumanising language calling opponents “vermin” and saying undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country" and talks of crushing enemies. Vance endorsed Jack Posobiec’s book Unhumans, which explicitly labels progressives “unhumans.” There have been many death threats aimed at democrats over the years, #Killary meme etc. Then of course the real consequences: the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, stoked by false claims of a “stolen” election, leading to many injured and the death of a police officer, Paul Pelosi being bludgeoned in his home by a man seeking Nancy Pelosi, and just this year a gunman with a hit list of Democratic officials murdering the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband. If you claim it's all coming from one side then you are absolutely blinded by your own bias.
Debunked? What has been debunked exactly? It's clear you've listened to exactly what you want to hear. The guy who murdered the two democrats was a right leaning trump supporter yet conservatives created all kinds of conspiracy theories about it and made horrible comments and lies after the deaths. Disgusting and hypocritical in contrast to the death of Charlie Kirk. Go on, I dare you to actually research these things through actual reputable sources.
Yes, and? I could bring up a hundred more examples of republicans and conservatives using similar language about progressives and democrats. But what we're debating is the claim that this is "overwhelmingly" coming from one side only. Clearly absolute nonsense. You've obviously drunk the Kool aid and are completely blind to anything that doesn't support your own bias. Goodbye.
Hmm - you seemed to have skipped over the following left inspired murders. By accident or design? Who is the one that is blinded by bias?
- Trans Minneapolis school shooting (2025): shooting included children at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis in August 2025.
- Trans Nashville school shooting (2023): A former student shot and killed six people, including three children, at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
- First assassination attempt of Donald Trump
- Second assassination attempt of Donald Trump
- Assassination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
- Violent Antifa city takeover attempt in Portland, Oregon
- Violent attacks on ICE officers in multiple cities.
- Republican Congressional baseball practice shooting by a left-wing activist
I could go on and on. The evidence is clear to see if you're being honest with yourself.
BTW: The only person murdered during Jan 6 was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed, non-violent protestor shot by capital police. The murder of the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband was conducted by a man hired by Tim Walz.
I can see there's no point in talking to you - since you believe baseless conspiracy theories and are completely blinded by your own bias as to the hatred, death threats and actual deaths caused by extremists on the right. This shouldn't be about left and right. All I'm trying to say is that the same things are happening on both sides (which it is) and you're trying to widen the divide which will only fuel more anger and violence on both sides. Wake up.
I understand why Dan phrased it this way, because he has an audience that spans the spectrum so I agree with him on that. At the same time I also agree with your point.
Absolutely sickening what people are getting away with these days! Morals have gone out the window. To be different today you literally have to be prepared to fight for your life.
Reddit and TikTok are frightening places right now. Full on daemonic possession. The platforms do influence the quality of consciousness greatly, and it shows.
I get the frustration—this kind of tragedy is heartbreaking and it's natural to want answers. But right now we only know there's been an arrest. We don't actually know the shooter's ideology, motives, or even if they have any political views at all.
Jumping to conclusions about their political affiliations without evidence goes against everything that article was talking about—avoiding ideological assumptions and dogmatic thinking. Yes, dehumanization and violence are real problems we see from multiple directions, but rushing to assign political blame based on assumptions just makes the division worse.
This is exactly the kind of situation where we need that clear-headed thinking the article was advocating for. Instead of letting our emotions drive us to fill in the blanks with our own biases, we should wait for actual facts. That's not being naive—that's being rational and principled, which is what we need more of right now.
I think the main problem here is that assassination and extreme violence is now replacing dialogue and peaceful exchange of opinions first Trump (twice!) and now Charlie Kirk. The frequency of these directors accidents is accelerating in my opinion .
I agree but who carried out those attacks and what are the facts? What were the motivations. There a lot of finger pointing but little evidence or truth presented. We are all Americans, these were Americans. Giteau didn't represent an ideology he was an crazy who shot a president. We need to all leave the emotions behind. Check them at the door. When you see a post or hear a clip the first question is can that be supported by verified sources, etc
That's a thoughtful reply in my opinion. There are rumors that the shooters might have been leftist, but you know, no authority has confirmed anything yet, and no proof has been evaluated so far.
As you say, by deciphering the relationship behind all these violent events, we might be able to put a stop to them, or at least reduce the risk of their recurrence.
We may never know the true motives behind these acts. Even manifestos are usually confused. But research shows most attackers are steeped in extreme rhetoric that dehumanizes opponents. This comes from all sides, and our system rewards it, drowning out real conversation. When someone calls you “Hitler” or a “fascist,” dialogue dies.
I reject the sweeping claims—Democrats want to destroy America, conservatives are fascists, all gun owners are violent. These are just different masks of the same broken logic. I know people across the spectrum—none of them want tyranny or collapse.
Normal, healthy people don’t kill. What distorts minds is consuming rhetoric that paints opponents as existential threats. They’re not: these are disagreements about values and governance.
If there’s a solution, it starts with us. We need to think critically, call out hate and misinformation, and ask: fact or spin? Truth or “truthiness”? My apologies to the length but your question is a good one that deserves the best response my poor mind can attempt. I think what you are asking is the essence of the real issue. Where do we go to get back to the business of being a more functional society?
You actually made a pivotal point, a great one. "Dehumanization" is indeed one of the most crucial factors that unfortunately justify such violent actions for people with a more shallow comprehension of politicsl dynamics, i.e assassination.
And as an addition to your words, I think the first step might be recalling one single foundational fact, that might have buried deep within all of these rhetoric extremitisms; that good or bad, we are all humans in essence, and human lives matter more than anything, more than any cause. I do understand that we got a variety of perspectives and opinions regarding everything, especially politics, but I still believe we all share a collective goal, to construct and maintain a prosperous society based on mutual respect and devoid of violence. That indeed sound utopian and too idealistic, but I believe that such a mindset might help a little with "labeling issue", calling everybody "racist", "Nazi" or "fascist".
And their reaction is often like "but it's my right to speech!" Or "I am allowed to express my opinion under first amendment!".
Of course, they can call them dictator, authoritarian, etc. They're adjectives after all, and certainly they can freely express their ideas.
But "Nazism" and "fascism"? That's just too far. They have precise and fixed definitions supported by rigorous historical evidence and proof. Plus, misusing them is a disrespect to millions of lives that were lost during horrific acts of Nazisk and Fascism across the world.
And the consequence of such a mislabeling? People don't really care about violence anymore! They'd mutter "they're Nazis after all, they have to die." And other gruesome plans that might think of.
I’d like to counter your thought that most people aren’t living at stage 0–fight or flight. I would say that many are consistently or they are bouncing in and out of it. Neuroscience tells us that the brain doesn’t always differentiate between perceived and real threat. Our amygdala kicks into protect us the same whether we are running from a lion or we are think our boss is out to get us. Constant societal stress with little or no self awareness keeps cortisol high.
I’m horrified by Charlie Kirk’s killing and by anyone suggesting he “deserved” it. But claiming this is overwhelmingly coming from one side is not only unequivocally false but deepens the divide of "us vs them". Trump has repeatedly used dehumanising language calling opponents “vermin” and saying undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country" and talks of crushing enemies. Vance endorsed Jack Posobiec’s book Unhumans, which explicitly labels progressives “unhumans.” There have been many death threats aimed at democrats over the years, #Killary meme etc. Then of course the real consequences: the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, stoked by false claims of a “stolen” election, leading to many injured and the death of a police officer, Paul Pelosi being bludgeoned in his home by a man seeking Nancy Pelosi, and just this year a gunman with a hit list of Democratic officials murdering the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband. If you claim it's all coming from one side then you are absolutely blinded by your own bias.
I was having similar thoughts as I was reading along until I got to the part where it said “You no longer hate a specific ideology and instead see what developmental levels it serves and which people need it at those levels.” And it gave me a pause.
While I still do think that we shouldn’t make room for the ways a certain ideology has violently harmed those they deem as lesser than, it’s clear why this ideology serves their level of thinking. I think digging into that gives me a little bit of peace since I always leaned on never being able to understand why they think the way they do outside of the simplified explanation of racism, misogyny, and patriarchy, this article gives me a chance to dig deeper into something I once found so shallow.
EVERYONE. And I mean EVERYONE needs to read this. The erosion of nuance and the ability to thus have dialogues with those whose views we disagree with is one of the biggest issues of our time.
I appreciate you tackling such a massive topic and trying to create a clear framework for understanding societal conflict. To add to the conversation, here are two thoughts on how the model could be refined.
You borrow very liberally from legitimate models of human development like Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber's work. But you have sanded off their nuance, complexity, and intellectual rigor.
One of the key insights from those models is that human development is often fluid, overlapping, and highly context-dependent, rather than a simple ladder of discrete levels. For instance, a person might operate from a "Level 3" perspective in their career but regress to a "Level 1" mindset when their core identity or family is threatened.
The danger of a simplified tiered system is that it can become a tool for intellectual vanity—making it too easy to label others as "Level 1" instead of seeing their perspective as a valid, context-dependent stage of development that we all move through.
Your strongest point is the critique of rigid ideology. The paradox, however, is that the HUMAN 3.0 framework seems to fit your own definition of an ideology.
By your criteria, it is:
* A cohesive set of beliefs about reality (i.e., that consciousness operates in these three distinct levels).
* A system with normative prescriptions for behaviour (i.e., that one should strive to synthesize perspectives and become a 3.0).
* A framework that can demonize opposing views by labeling them as lower, less-developed, or "animalistic."
This raises a genuine puzzle I see in most self-improvement and developmental models. How do we use a map to guide us without starting to worship the map itself?
Really appreciate you sparking such a critical discussion. I look forward to seeing how these ideas evolve.
I am honestly still upset about what happened to Charlie Kirk. This is how I responded to a personal friend who I thought was out of line to speak about it, as it was a good thing that happened:
He who never wants to hear, and fails to look for what we have in common, preaching love but hating opposite opinions. Holding Virtue signaling in high regard and always telling others what they are doing wrong. Having no original thoughts but creating their Divine opinions from the echo chambers they call their social media.
With their insecurities on display, they attach their identities to their Utopian ideology, never able to solve the problems of the now. But yes, calling other people names (racist, bigot, fascist) for that is solving real problems.
The number of times I read comments on Instagram posts and no matter how innocent the content is there's almost always a swathe of overly negative / political / religious comments. To the point that now I just think it's all bots attempting to rage-bait people.
I read an article recently about how 70% of the comments we see are all bots. And ironically, bots commenting on bots comments. An immensely wasteful use of energy (both mentally and environmentally). That gives me some solitude to think that everyone isn't fucked, it's just noise.
Which is why we all need to go for a walk and listen to the birds for a bit.
Great article man. What really stood out to me was: 3) Your former enemies become teachers.
As I'm working to help transform the sales industry away from the "sleazy sales' stigma I am realizing how important it was that I lived in that world for awhile. Without having those experiences I wouldn't have the perspective I have. So as much as I "hate" that way of doing business...I'm grateful for it.
What you describe as ideology, I’ve seen as clinging. The tighter the mind grips a view, the smaller its world becomes. I think Freedom is not about choosing the “right” ideology, its more in loosening the grip itself. Then life becomes fluid again, and truth can be seen without distortion. Love the article, thank you Dan🙏
This was brilliant. I love so much about this; thanks for sharing. Having more people engaging in self-reflection and questioning their beliefs (and where they might have come from) definitely leads to a better society.
I enjoyed your article but have to take issue with your opening statement “What the f*ck is wrong with everyone?” It’s not everyone, the insanity is overwhelming coming from one side. That side has dehumanized anyone who doesn’t think like them to the point of using assassination to silence them. That side cheers gleefully at the cold blooded murder of husband and father. Ironically, the side that calls people ’Hitler’ are themselves behaving just like Hitler did.
1000%
Anyone who denies that isn’t paying attention
’m horrified by Charlie Kirk’s killing and by anyone suggesting he “deserved” it. But claiming this is overwhelmingly coming from one side is not only unequivocally false but deepens the divide of "us vs them". Trump has repeatedly used dehumanising language calling opponents “vermin” and saying undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country" and talks of crushing enemies. Vance endorsed Jack Posobiec’s book Unhumans, which explicitly labels progressives “unhumans.” There have been many death threats aimed at democrats over the years, #Killary meme etc. Then of course the real consequences: the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, stoked by false claims of a “stolen” election, leading to many injured and the death of a police officer, Paul Pelosi being bludgeoned in his home by a man seeking Nancy Pelosi, and just this year a gunman with a hit list of Democratic officials murdering the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband. If you claim it's all coming from one side then you are absolutely blinded by your own bias.
The Jan 6th thing has already been debunked.
Like a million times.
Also democratic lawmaker getting shot was a personal vendetta they knew each other from serving on a state workforce development board.
This guy killed Charlie because he didn’t know him and was told lies by media outlets who constantly call everyone nazis for no real reason.
Let’s get real. It’s a dark dark time for the Democratic Party and getting worse.
Debunked? What has been debunked exactly? It's clear you've listened to exactly what you want to hear. The guy who murdered the two democrats was a right leaning trump supporter yet conservatives created all kinds of conspiracy theories about it and made horrible comments and lies after the deaths. Disgusting and hypocritical in contrast to the death of Charlie Kirk. Go on, I dare you to actually research these things through actual reputable sources.
I have.
Buddy Tim waltz 2 weeks ago said he would be happy to see trump dead .
https://x.com/rubinreport/status/1969052927126839491/mediaviewer
Yes, and? I could bring up a hundred more examples of republicans and conservatives using similar language about progressives and democrats. But what we're debating is the claim that this is "overwhelmingly" coming from one side only. Clearly absolute nonsense. You've obviously drunk the Kool aid and are completely blind to anything that doesn't support your own bias. Goodbye.
Hmm - you seemed to have skipped over the following left inspired murders. By accident or design? Who is the one that is blinded by bias?
- Trans Minneapolis school shooting (2025): shooting included children at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis in August 2025.
- Trans Nashville school shooting (2023): A former student shot and killed six people, including three children, at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
- First assassination attempt of Donald Trump
- Second assassination attempt of Donald Trump
- Assassination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
- Violent Antifa city takeover attempt in Portland, Oregon
- Violent attacks on ICE officers in multiple cities.
- Republican Congressional baseball practice shooting by a left-wing activist
I could go on and on. The evidence is clear to see if you're being honest with yourself.
BTW: The only person murdered during Jan 6 was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed, non-violent protestor shot by capital police. The murder of the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband was conducted by a man hired by Tim Walz.
I can see there's no point in talking to you - since you believe baseless conspiracy theories and are completely blinded by your own bias as to the hatred, death threats and actual deaths caused by extremists on the right. This shouldn't be about left and right. All I'm trying to say is that the same things are happening on both sides (which it is) and you're trying to widen the divide which will only fuel more anger and violence on both sides. Wake up.
I understand why Dan phrased it this way, because he has an audience that spans the spectrum so I agree with him on that. At the same time I also agree with your point.
Absolutely sickening what people are getting away with these days! Morals have gone out the window. To be different today you literally have to be prepared to fight for your life.
Our society has no clear moral framework. People don't even know their values. We depend on people who stand for something.
Reddit and TikTok are frightening places right now. Full on daemonic possession. The platforms do influence the quality of consciousness greatly, and it shows.
It's a reflection of how sick our society is, when this is considered "normal."
I get the frustration—this kind of tragedy is heartbreaking and it's natural to want answers. But right now we only know there's been an arrest. We don't actually know the shooter's ideology, motives, or even if they have any political views at all.
Jumping to conclusions about their political affiliations without evidence goes against everything that article was talking about—avoiding ideological assumptions and dogmatic thinking. Yes, dehumanization and violence are real problems we see from multiple directions, but rushing to assign political blame based on assumptions just makes the division worse.
This is exactly the kind of situation where we need that clear-headed thinking the article was advocating for. Instead of letting our emotions drive us to fill in the blanks with our own biases, we should wait for actual facts. That's not being naive—that's being rational and principled, which is what we need more of right now.
I think the main problem here is that assassination and extreme violence is now replacing dialogue and peaceful exchange of opinions first Trump (twice!) and now Charlie Kirk. The frequency of these directors accidents is accelerating in my opinion .
I agree but who carried out those attacks and what are the facts? What were the motivations. There a lot of finger pointing but little evidence or truth presented. We are all Americans, these were Americans. Giteau didn't represent an ideology he was an crazy who shot a president. We need to all leave the emotions behind. Check them at the door. When you see a post or hear a clip the first question is can that be supported by verified sources, etc
That's a thoughtful reply in my opinion. There are rumors that the shooters might have been leftist, but you know, no authority has confirmed anything yet, and no proof has been evaluated so far.
As you say, by deciphering the relationship behind all these violent events, we might be able to put a stop to them, or at least reduce the risk of their recurrence.
We may never know the true motives behind these acts. Even manifestos are usually confused. But research shows most attackers are steeped in extreme rhetoric that dehumanizes opponents. This comes from all sides, and our system rewards it, drowning out real conversation. When someone calls you “Hitler” or a “fascist,” dialogue dies.
I reject the sweeping claims—Democrats want to destroy America, conservatives are fascists, all gun owners are violent. These are just different masks of the same broken logic. I know people across the spectrum—none of them want tyranny or collapse.
Normal, healthy people don’t kill. What distorts minds is consuming rhetoric that paints opponents as existential threats. They’re not: these are disagreements about values and governance.
If there’s a solution, it starts with us. We need to think critically, call out hate and misinformation, and ask: fact or spin? Truth or “truthiness”? My apologies to the length but your question is a good one that deserves the best response my poor mind can attempt. I think what you are asking is the essence of the real issue. Where do we go to get back to the business of being a more functional society?
You actually made a pivotal point, a great one. "Dehumanization" is indeed one of the most crucial factors that unfortunately justify such violent actions for people with a more shallow comprehension of politicsl dynamics, i.e assassination.
And as an addition to your words, I think the first step might be recalling one single foundational fact, that might have buried deep within all of these rhetoric extremitisms; that good or bad, we are all humans in essence, and human lives matter more than anything, more than any cause. I do understand that we got a variety of perspectives and opinions regarding everything, especially politics, but I still believe we all share a collective goal, to construct and maintain a prosperous society based on mutual respect and devoid of violence. That indeed sound utopian and too idealistic, but I believe that such a mindset might help a little with "labeling issue", calling everybody "racist", "Nazi" or "fascist".
Nonetheless, I really appreciate your opinion!
We actually do know at this point.
Guy shot Charlie because he felt Charlie was full of hate and he was dating a man transitioning into a woman.
It’s pretty clear what side he was on.
This is so true!
And their reaction is often like "but it's my right to speech!" Or "I am allowed to express my opinion under first amendment!".
Of course, they can call them dictator, authoritarian, etc. They're adjectives after all, and certainly they can freely express their ideas.
But "Nazism" and "fascism"? That's just too far. They have precise and fixed definitions supported by rigorous historical evidence and proof. Plus, misusing them is a disrespect to millions of lives that were lost during horrific acts of Nazisk and Fascism across the world.
And the consequence of such a mislabeling? People don't really care about violence anymore! They'd mutter "they're Nazis after all, they have to die." And other gruesome plans that might think of.
I completely agree. The same people crying fascism are acting exactly like fascists.
I don't think you actually know the definition of fascism.
Yeah I do. Read it over a few times and really take it in instead of staying ignorant.
Kinda funny how Dan basically writes a whole essay about digging into antagonistic perspectives and the first comment is kinda like: BUT IT’S THEM!!
Back in June, EVERY SINGLE HOUSE REPUBLICAN voted to pass a resolution condemning the kiIIing of Melissa Hortman
This morning, 96 Democrats voted either AGAINST or “present” on a resolution condemning the kiIIing of Charlie Kirk
To the degree that people see the world through the optics of "sides," humanity will be proportionally f*cked.
Imagine thinking that there are sides
I’d like to counter your thought that most people aren’t living at stage 0–fight or flight. I would say that many are consistently or they are bouncing in and out of it. Neuroscience tells us that the brain doesn’t always differentiate between perceived and real threat. Our amygdala kicks into protect us the same whether we are running from a lion or we are think our boss is out to get us. Constant societal stress with little or no self awareness keeps cortisol high.
I’m horrified by Charlie Kirk’s killing and by anyone suggesting he “deserved” it. But claiming this is overwhelmingly coming from one side is not only unequivocally false but deepens the divide of "us vs them". Trump has repeatedly used dehumanising language calling opponents “vermin” and saying undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country" and talks of crushing enemies. Vance endorsed Jack Posobiec’s book Unhumans, which explicitly labels progressives “unhumans.” There have been many death threats aimed at democrats over the years, #Killary meme etc. Then of course the real consequences: the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, stoked by false claims of a “stolen” election, leading to many injured and the death of a police officer, Paul Pelosi being bludgeoned in his home by a man seeking Nancy Pelosi, and just this year a gunman with a hit list of Democratic officials murdering the Minnesota House Speaker and her husband. If you claim it's all coming from one side then you are absolutely blinded by your own bias.
I was having similar thoughts as I was reading along until I got to the part where it said “You no longer hate a specific ideology and instead see what developmental levels it serves and which people need it at those levels.” And it gave me a pause.
While I still do think that we shouldn’t make room for the ways a certain ideology has violently harmed those they deem as lesser than, it’s clear why this ideology serves their level of thinking. I think digging into that gives me a little bit of peace since I always leaned on never being able to understand why they think the way they do outside of the simplified explanation of racism, misogyny, and patriarchy, this article gives me a chance to dig deeper into something I once found so shallow.
And what exactly?
EVERYONE. And I mean EVERYONE needs to read this. The erosion of nuance and the ability to thus have dialogues with those whose views we disagree with is one of the biggest issues of our time.
Hey Dan,
I appreciate you tackling such a massive topic and trying to create a clear framework for understanding societal conflict. To add to the conversation, here are two thoughts on how the model could be refined.
You borrow very liberally from legitimate models of human development like Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber's work. But you have sanded off their nuance, complexity, and intellectual rigor.
One of the key insights from those models is that human development is often fluid, overlapping, and highly context-dependent, rather than a simple ladder of discrete levels. For instance, a person might operate from a "Level 3" perspective in their career but regress to a "Level 1" mindset when their core identity or family is threatened.
The danger of a simplified tiered system is that it can become a tool for intellectual vanity—making it too easy to label others as "Level 1" instead of seeing their perspective as a valid, context-dependent stage of development that we all move through.
Your strongest point is the critique of rigid ideology. The paradox, however, is that the HUMAN 3.0 framework seems to fit your own definition of an ideology.
By your criteria, it is:
* A cohesive set of beliefs about reality (i.e., that consciousness operates in these three distinct levels).
* A system with normative prescriptions for behaviour (i.e., that one should strive to synthesize perspectives and become a 3.0).
* A framework that can demonize opposing views by labeling them as lower, less-developed, or "animalistic."
This raises a genuine puzzle I see in most self-improvement and developmental models. How do we use a map to guide us without starting to worship the map itself?
Really appreciate you sparking such a critical discussion. I look forward to seeing how these ideas evolve.
Cheers.
Very interesting take. Thank you for making us reflect.
Much appreciated. Most valuable comment in here.
I am honestly still upset about what happened to Charlie Kirk. This is how I responded to a personal friend who I thought was out of line to speak about it, as it was a good thing that happened:
He who never wants to hear, and fails to look for what we have in common, preaching love but hating opposite opinions. Holding Virtue signaling in high regard and always telling others what they are doing wrong. Having no original thoughts but creating their Divine opinions from the echo chambers they call their social media.
With their insecurities on display, they attach their identities to their Utopian ideology, never able to solve the problems of the now. But yes, calling other people names (racist, bigot, fascist) for that is solving real problems.
followed for being a human
Thank you, Nika.
The number of times I read comments on Instagram posts and no matter how innocent the content is there's almost always a swathe of overly negative / political / religious comments. To the point that now I just think it's all bots attempting to rage-bait people.
I read an article recently about how 70% of the comments we see are all bots. And ironically, bots commenting on bots comments. An immensely wasteful use of energy (both mentally and environmentally). That gives me some solitude to think that everyone isn't fucked, it's just noise.
Which is why we all need to go for a walk and listen to the birds for a bit.
(I'd also love that AI prompt. Thanks Dan)
Great article man. What really stood out to me was: 3) Your former enemies become teachers.
As I'm working to help transform the sales industry away from the "sleazy sales' stigma I am realizing how important it was that I lived in that world for awhile. Without having those experiences I wouldn't have the perspective I have. So as much as I "hate" that way of doing business...I'm grateful for it.
Good stuff, Dan. I’d like to get the AI prompt you mentioned.
What you describe as ideology, I’ve seen as clinging. The tighter the mind grips a view, the smaller its world becomes. I think Freedom is not about choosing the “right” ideology, its more in loosening the grip itself. Then life becomes fluid again, and truth can be seen without distortion. Love the article, thank you Dan🙏
This is the reason you’re #1 in philosophy.
Amazing heading and amazing insights into the human condition. Thanks for giving us the real stuff man ❤️
Dan Koe. You proved that you are a level 1 thinker by judging things that you have no understanding of and have not researched.
“Seek me and you shall find me.” Jesus Christ
A good read, thanks for sharing 💯 ✨
This was brilliant. I love so much about this; thanks for sharing. Having more people engaging in self-reflection and questioning their beliefs (and where they might have come from) definitely leads to a better society.
AI Prompt 💯!
I loved that about holding paradoxes. Thanks for the insights!
Great read and a lot of truth. Would be really interesting to get that AI prompt for the first step to deconstruct my beliefs.
People reading this 10 years from now would appreciate it even better.
dan, you wrote these newsletter with word to word? I don't understand how you have that much to write every week
he’s an athlete.
For sure