I think this is an unfair summation. I'm not very familiar with Adams, granted, but I think we need to see these kinds of ecelebs as stepping stones that help until they hurt. Casting all of them off, despite being ecelebs, which, I agree, aren't usually that palatable to people who aren't normalfags, doesn't really do them justice.
It's like everyone calling Peterson Jewish; just because he can't sacrifice his worldwide reach to young men by discussing the JQ doesn't mean he's a paid deepstate actor used to shape or pace public perceptions.
There's a stoic principal which vaguely translates to, "don't focus too much on people's faults. If you do, you'll never be able to appreciate or see the value they bring and the ways in which they can beneficially alter your perceptions or state of mind."
These people are helpful. Not 100% of the time, sure. But casting them all off as agents that will never help wider public discourse isn't really that conducive to the baby steps normalfags need to take in order to ask themselves the appropriately iterative questions to better notice or convey Truth.
I generally agree about ecelebs though, for the record.
There's a stoic principal which vaguely translates to, "don't focus too much on people's faults. If you do, you'll never be able to appreciate or see the value they bring and the ways in which they can beneficially alter your perceptions or state of mind."
Well thank you.
but I think we need to see these kinds of ecelebs as stepping stones that help until they hurt.
This is my position as well.
Does the benefit outweigh the cost, is what I ask about grifters.
Are they saying something that e want said, or asking questions we want asked.
If they are, and it helps at the given juncture, then they stay. If not, they get discarded/discounted.
Basically a more useful variation of the idea of using some groups as political "ablative shielding."
The way I see it is the ones "on the other side" have issues getting to a receptive state. What I can offer people isn't really in line with prerequisite stations of their unfolding comprehension. People like Rogan or Peterson are, without doubt, better at getting through to those people. I'm better at peeling back deeper layers and the vast majority probably aren't receptive to the dismissive crowds, who the kinds of ecelebs I mentioned are better at grappling with. Therefore, I see people like Rogan/Peterson as the gatherers of normies, who beat them in to submission, until they begin to think. My role isn't getting them there. Mine is a deeper reduction, after they're more receptive to truths. I can't offer them what the likes of Tim can. My role is more about helping them to challenge what they know, not beginning the process of deeper thought.
Susceptibility > Agency > Logos
(post is archived)