Talk:Leo Gura

Really cool
I remember when this website used to actually be a serviceable source of information. now it's full of bullshit like this article which is blatant mischaracterization and misinformation. there are legitimate grievances to be had with leo gura's ideas. most of them aren't here. instead we have bullshit like "originally was a pickup artist channel" and "he believes the law of attraction" (yeah, i guess you can surmise that from staring at the title of the video like a buffoon and then regurgitate it here. good job.) and that he's a "pedophilia apologetic" (for which the argument given is so tenuous you could make a new wiki citing all the crap now on rationalwiki of this kind). whoever spent time making this should be ashamed they missed the mark so bad. this site has been totally rick and mortized into a pile of nu-atheism bullshit. fake news. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the article is a work in progress and if we've missed anything, you can add it in yourself. But given that all you've done on this wiki so far is defend Leo, I suspect this account was created simply to complain about the uncharitable nature of the article.Aporadox (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Having actually seen and been a victim of his videos I can say this article is right. His first video on skepticism got it wrong in that he tried to apply pyrrhonism to science when it’s all knowledge. His self deception video was more about his opinions on what self deception is, and he even stated that debate itself was a form of this. Even on the forum the only defense they have for their views is radical skepticism which still sinks their ship. I looked at the video history and he had some pretty sane ideas before he went off the deep end. It’s also telling that whenever I post his videos outside his “fan club” I learn of all the errors and leaps in thinking he makes.Machina (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While much of Leo Gura's philosophy is certainly dubious, the claim that he is a scammer, brainwasher or pedophile apologetic seems like character assassination–dare I say defamation–to me. The purpose of RationalWiki is obviously to pick apart woo-woo, but I think this article could stand to be much more objective when doing that. Krunchyman (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well he is an apologetic for pedophilia, that part isn’t character assassination. Also to call his philosophy dubious is a gross understatement. He frequently misrepresents findings or philosophy to support his own views and does censor dissenting comments. He even claims to understand quantum physics better than the people who actually practice it. His video on Pyrrhonic skepticism was clearly geared towards “materialism” when that branch is towards all claims of knowledge. I get what you mean about defamation but in this case it isn’t so since he really is as bad as they say, not to mention he frequently denigrates those who disagree with his philosophy calling them either morons or unenlightened. As for brainwashing, well some of his videos do use the same techniques cult leaders do.Machina (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how a few of those points on the mind control list would apply, especially rejection of old values. But verbal abuse? Sleep deprivation? Change of diet? Dress codes? Chanting and singing? Disagree with his philosophy, but Leo Gura is not rounding people up and forcing them to do bizarre things in dark rooms while picking their pockets. And he encourages private contemplation in many of his videos. That's the opposite of mind control. A lot of people out there seem to be disillusioned after spending money on his life purpose course. But then they are just suckers who gave up $250 thinking a series of videos could change their lives. Or that they needed a "life purpose" in the first place. That only makes the guy a businessman, not a brainwasher or cult leader. As for pedophilia apologist, I'll concede that one to you. I re-read his comments. He's defending more than just pedophilia, but moral nihilism in general. Krunchyman (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Brainwashing doesn't have to be about that. It's other methods like telling you the mainstream is wrong or how the common terms for using things are wrong but he alone understands them. It's a common tactic about upending what you know and having him fill that void as well. The style of video has to do with it as well. He says to question but when pressed on his own remarks or claims, or shown to be wrong he dodges and deflects to anything else.Machina (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone goes against mainstream opinion, that only proves they are a contrarian or a crank. People make upheavals to their worldview all the time. I upended everything I knew about Christianity and replaced it with atheism. But according to you, that must mean I've been brainwashed? Also, Leo Gura refusing to admit he is wrong says nothing about his ability to brainwash others. If I see concrete evidence of these apparent subliminal techniques, I'll gladly believe it. Until then, I'll call Leo Gura a crank, not a cult leader. Krunchyman (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that the brainwashed and cult argument IMHO is weak, although the accusation has come up in social media. One problem with this guy is he's basically in a Youtube bubble so there are few reference except for Reddit, Quora, etc. The $249 Ultimate Life Purpose Course is a scam, although unlike some rube-fleecers I imagine Leo believes every word he says in it. What I will say after a brief look is that, first impression is that he says a lot of mentally empty bullshit that probably sounds great on psychedelic drugs (not surprisingly the largest board on Leo's forum), combining self-help type angles with New Age mysticism and Timothy Leary "psychedelics are DEEP man", the New Age/psych stuff seeming to take over the channel recently. I watched his latest "how psychedelics work" article (for a few minutes) and he ranted on how psychedelics are so deep and "you can't use the materialistic paradigm" to explain them (yay, a "fuck science" opinion! Tell that to the chemist who made his precious tryptamines), going on about something about there is no material reality there is only consciousness the universe is a giant mind blah blah blah. Basically, turn your mysticism "nothing is real" mode on, filter some washed up Eastern philosophy through your "research chemical" experience and rant for 2 hours. This is pretty much New Age/drug style guru bullshit and since 90% of the article seems dedicated to this, I see less problems with the article than you do. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know it is a scam? Have you bought it? I'm not trying to go easy on Leo Gura. I think he is dangerously delusional and dissociated from reality, and is doing serious damage to his rational faculties with the research hallucinogens he seems to enjoy bingeing on. Not to mention the community he is beguiling. But the article comes off as uncredible when it exaggerates the case. If the Life Purpose Course is a scam, can we know exactly how he is defrauding people with the product? Deceptive marketing? Krunchyman (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No
Don't be an imbecile. It's okay to be a butthurt insecure ex-follower of a pseudo-cult leader, but don't remove my work because of that if it contradicts your idiotic delusions, especially the factually correct things put down that don't even defend nonduality. Seriously, don't be an r-word. HairlessCat (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow someone sounds bitter. It's got nothing to do with insecurity but seeing through the facade of his. I've shared his stuff on psychedelics forums and even they think he's crazy (which is saying something). The "factually" correct stuff is not even relevant to the topic, it's trying to "whitewash" the guy and paint him as something he's not, which is less crazy. I've been on the forums, anything he says is right and if you contradict him you are an "unenlightened materialist" or "just don't get it". I had a thread locked because I questioned the answers they were giving (didn't even get past 4 total posts). These posts will be deleted because they are trying to create a fictional narrative of the guy. I should amend my last statement because what you posted was not factually correct. I will not allow the legitimization of a nutbar.Machina (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just put some factually correct info back about his treat and porn bringing him to tears. HairlessCat (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

More lies, like the part about Godel. If you read the segment his view only applies if you deny the existence of unsolvable problems, and there are unsolvable problems. So his anti-mechanistic view is false, they even show how these arguments failed in the link you provided. Also none of the theorems prove God or mysticism. It's like you are trying to make the guy appear legitimate with false interpretations and irrelevant data.Machina (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wut, I literally said it was not a good argument and was not verified in any way, shape or form. HairlessCat (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the abuse of Godel's theorems.Machina (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mentlegemen
Hiya! Y'all don't know me, I'm just some newbie here who likes to take the occasional look at recent changes. Before you both point out that I have no authority to jump into this because I am not an elected mod I would just like to say that I am not here to berate either of you, or lecture ye, or make fun of the two of you. I'm just a man on the street, quietly walking by, and seeing a bit of an argument.

I have no doubt that after the little edit war you two are having and the blocking, the insults will soon start. The long tirades of angry toxic garbage, coming forth at the bastard who would seek to revert your righteous edits! Y'all are getting a bit annoyed in real life now, mashing the keyboard, your breaths getting slightly quicker, your heart rates going up.

It's not worth it. Whatever angry prose you are about to fire off, whatever detailed obscene rebuttals are in progress, allow me to remind you that 1) The list of things that are more fun than arguing on a wiki is enormous, and you could be doing something, RIGHT NOW, to put a smile on your face, or somebody else's face, IN REAL LIFE, and that the world isn't gonna end because of this shit 2) We have a debate space where you can initiate good faith discussions, and private sandboxes where you could both write up your own versions of the article and bring them to a third party to determine which is superior. We are equipped to sort this out in all sorts of ways that don't involve any nastiness. So please allow me to propose this:


 * You both stop editing the article.
 * You both take your respective, preferred versions to your sandboxes.
 * You both will engage in a good faith discussion, evaluating each other's articles, and clarifying to each other why you made certain edits.
 * Failing to reach a consensus, you will ask a mod to read both versions and decide which one is better.

Or not. I care right now, because I am sleep deprived, but I probably won't when I come home from work tomorrow. But before you dismiss me and tell me to go fuck myself, please, PLEASE, just try and sort this out without blocking, LANCB-es or stupid, unbelievably long coop cases. I don't know either of you, but I know you guys are better than this petty garbage. Peace. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 21:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've locked the page so that only admins can edit it for the next few days so that, , and can discuss any proposed changes here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There’s nothing to discuss, it’s the actions of ONE user trying to legitimize a crank. If the mods or community said the changes were ok that’s one thing but this is all the changes were literally done by one user and they are all attempts to legitimize woo.Machina (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No? HairlessCat (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Again
"Don't be an imbecile. It's okay to be a butthurt insecure ex-follower of a pseudo-cult leader, but don't remove my work because of that if it contradicts your idiotic delusions, especially the factually correct things put down that don't even defend nonduality." -HairlessCat (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the abrasive tone, but removing stuff for literally no reason at all is stupid. HairlessCat (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page. HairlessCat (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s not no reason, it’s all irrelevant to the page. Your tone suggests you are too close to the matter to see that. We aren’t writing a biography here or validating woo either. If you want to do that take it to Wikipedia.Machina (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. It's relevant contextually to the mission statement. 2. It doesn't validate woo-woo. 3. Therefore, you are wrong. 4. You are obviously very closer to the matter than I am since you have some emotional connection to being perceptively abused by him or something, but just stop revoking my edits and we'll be fine. HairlessCat (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Cat... well, you see I'm a complete neutral in this topic, since I had no clue who this Gura lad was before the two of ye started edit warring, and I don't know either of you. So take my word as a neutral, first time reader of the article, that I think Machina's version is kinda superior in the sense that it makes the read time shorter and the article just feels more concise. The entire thing feels like a stupid mindfuck anyway and it's all over the place (and there is no way in hell that I am going to investigate the 50+ citations of this guy's ideas to get clarification. I'm sad, but I ain't that sad). "We aren’t writing a biography here or validating woo either. " (Machina I don't think Cat is validating this lad. He clearly dislikes him as much as you do.) See Cat, a paragraph like this:


 * "Actualized.org has gotten much less practical for the wannabe pickup artists in the original fanbase. In Gura's unending quest for meaning, he had obviously taken a toll. You see, if consciousness is infinite, even if you have attained infinity, there is always an infinity of infinities to become aware of (so it is literally impossible to reach the end). Clearly, that's why zen masters just sit around, laugh, and drink tea. However, on 4 March 2020, Gura left a video detailing his future plans. After the deepest 5-MeO-DMT awakenings he had experienced up until that point, Gura looked rather dreary as he detailed how he was the most awakened teacher and that he could see a future where he could physically perform miracles using God consciousness. This created a mix of anticipation, concern, amusement, and curiosity among his different fans. Gura then decided he was going to go on an isolated retreat to go even deeper into consciousness, and the coronavirus crisis provided the perfect setting for this. On April 15th, upon Gura's return to his channel, he documented how he snorted 5-MeO-DMT everyday for thirty days until he got dangerously close to "physical death" (mahāsamādhi). In the video, he documented the infinite beauty and love and such, tearing up at several moments. Not only that, he actually seemed much more lucid and sane compared to the depressed Gura from before the retreat. He stated that he had taken enough 5-MeO-DMT and did not plan on doing it again. This is the video where he cried over the loveliness of his porn collection."


 * which Machina just mercilessly threw in the trashcan, to me it reads kinda crappy. "You see, if consciousness is infinite, even if you have attained infinity, there is always an infinity of infinities to become aware of (so it is literally impossible to reach the end)." I'm here as a newcomer like, "wut"?! The sentence, from a pure reading comprehension view, feels badly written. Not because of missionality or context, but because it makes me not enjoy the article. I don't think Machina is doing this cus he is "butthurt", but because there is a lot dead wood in the article. Chopping it away doesn't make the guy come across as any less ridiculous, nor do I crave every minute detail for the purpose of context. (That's just my opinion tho, I hope I wan't offensive in any way Cat. I can see that you both care about this thing a lot more than I do.) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 21:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll rewrite some of the prose tomorrow to be more readable and less "esoteric." I'm adding a "cults" category to appease Machina's hatred. HairlessCat (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Machina, I get that the article feels more streamlined with your revisions, but Cat put the effort in, so let's see what Cat can do to make this thing read a bit better and be a bit more informative. I don't think the disagreement here is to do with missionality or whitewashing, but a more a case of preference in reading material. Do we like George R. R. Martin levels of detail, or are we more Ernest Hemingway "let's just write this shit with no fluff" sorta thing. Give Cat some time to do a bit of streamlining and let him make the article more newcomer friendly (honestly Cat, if this is somebody's landing point on RatWiki, I'm not sure if they would be happy or not. Like a coin toss, they would either love the level of detail or hate the clutter). If he fails in his streamlining efforts we can all chat about it, but let's not do this petty reverting stuff. It doesn't solve anything. Look after yourselves. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what sort of effort is put in if it is irrelevant to the article. His downward spiral is not important, nor is the bit on Godel where they say such a view is mistaken. I know what I took out because it was not relevant. It's an attempt to introduce woo rather than call it out for what it is, batshit. The only evidence he has is himself and when you call him on it he handwaves it as "you don't get it". But I did cut some stuff out because it was not important to know. IT's the same on the Terrance Mckenna page too.Machina (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A person having a mental breakdown that stops them from believing in woo is pretty important, and the Godel quote is actually meant to show where he is mistaken on that matter. This isn't a conspiracy to whitewash the page. I'll fix the prose evening ETC. HairlessCat (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the sixteenth of September. HairlessCat (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I gather he didn't have a mental breakdown but rather the fans on his forum began to question all his claims and he eventually left. The Godel quote is still irrelevant since the point was how he used the Theorems to validate why he doesn't have to explain anything when that is not what they say. What Godel thought is irrelevant. Also I read the part about the spiral, doesn't sound like he stopped believing in woo. Also you seem to have it out against materialism from the edits on the pages on here.
 * 1. He had a mental breakdown during his thirty day retreat and his healing attempts failed, thus he no longer believes that. 2. Your point on the Godel quote is a non-sequitur since it literally shows where he is coming from and why he is wrong. 3. Me not being a logical positivist has literally nothing to do with the contents of the article. HairlessCat (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it kind of does have something to do with the contents of the article, even if you can't see it. As I said the Godel quote is irrelevant to his usage of the theorems which is rooted in misunderstandings of what they entail. What Godel believed is irrelevant. I also wonder if the 30 day thing was true and if he does not believe anymore. Again all the edits read like they were by him or someone from Actualized. They aren't relevant to the main article and will be deleted.Machina (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Well it kind of does have something to do with the contents of the article, even if you can't see it." Not really, other than stating idealism/phenomenalism is epistemically sound. "As I said the Godel quote is irrelevant to his usage of the theorems which is rooted in misunderstandings of what they entail. What Godel believed is irrelevant." Yes, the Godel quote explains why his usage of the theorems is rooted in misunderstandings of what they entail, and that despite people thinking the theorems point to anti-mechanism, there is certainly no absolute factual proof there. "They aren't relevant to the main article and will be deleted." Well, technically no, they won't be. HairlessCat (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this page targeted by some Tor BoNs?
For almost the past month, I've been seeing this page getting vandalised by the same person with a VPN and Tor copy-pasting his Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Does anyone have an idea? 19:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It always happens at the same time as other, less targeted vandalism. Friedrich Nietzsche is another common target. Christopher (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)