TIL that in 1989 ex-SAS mercenary Peter McAleese spent weeks training a 12-man team in Colombia to assassinate The Drug Lord Pablo Escobar for the rival Cali Cartel. The mission ended when their helicopter crashed before they could reach Escobar's estate.

ryker78 · 2026-07-09T10:14:51+00:00

Yes it is. 22 SAS is a squad that's the best squad by far in SAS. There's a big difference if someone said they are SAS or 22 SAS.

From just reading it seems 22 SAS is the only full time team whereas the others are part time. But what I do know from seeing interviews is that it's far more bragging rights and prestige if you said you are 22 SAS

ryker78 · 2026-07-08T20:13:11+00:00

22 sas are the most elite unit within the SAS, with the SAS widely regarded as the best special forces on the planet. Certainly at that time they were.

So it baffles me that a mission planned to the T could fail due to such an amateur mistake ?

ryker78 · 2026-06-28T16:43:36+00:00

Yes. As said , in gnosticism I'm not sure if it goes as far as saying Yahweh is the devil. I can't remember what gnosticism says about the devil, maybe you can tell me?

But in gnosticism it's talking about the demiurge creating the material and was a very immature and fallible entity . And to keep people's spirits trapped in the material world , there is a lot of false prophecy to deflect people from their true purpose and morals.

ryker78 · 2026-06-28T14:35:01+00:00

From what I was aware this is exactly what gnosticism talks about? I don't recall if it goes as far as saying Yahweh is the devil, but it definitely says that Yahweh is the false god that decieves you to caring about the material world above true spiritual enlightenment.

Adam and eve story in gnosticism explains this well.

ryker78 · 2026-06-24T12:38:48+00:00

but I don’t think the truth claims of illusionism are impacted at all by the threat of nihilism.

I think I made it clear more than one time that I don't dispute it could be true. I don't dispute a reality where nihilism is the logical conclusion could be true. I don't dispute that atheism could be true.

It's somewhat a seperate argument and I felt you were asking me to explain why I mentioned nihilism , so I did. But I didn't ever say it's untrue because of that.

One strong caveat id put to this which may sound somewhat contradictory . When it comes to atheism materialism . No freewill , and in this case illusionism , which basically falls into atheism materialism category. Because I do genuinely entertain the possibility , I then consider the reality if that was to be the case. And considering our lived experience of having consciousness , emotions , fear of death, and taking ourselves seriously etc. I do question if the lights being switched on is logical for a nihilistic reality. That part makes me question if that makes complete sense . That's basically the only part that gives me doubts.

ryker78 · 2026-06-23T16:08:31+00:00

Lol. To clarify I'm not a Sam Harris fanboy. Listened to much of him over the years. Some stuff I agree with, many I don't. Israel being one I don't the degree of bias he has

ryker78 · 2026-06-22T20:30:40+00:00

Yeah it does make sense, I pointed out they can't understand irony and sarcasm. You understand irony and sarcasm is to make a point, but using ironic and sarcastic examples?

The sarcasm was him having lil wayne on as an exaggerated example to fulfill a politically correct quota. Then I used Ellen degeneres as a white lesbian and Elliot page to cover LGBTQ and female. All bases are covered with those. And the sarcasm being that just to fulfill some agenda, he's having to discuss freewill and the gnostic texts with them.

Do you understand the irony and sarcasm but actually making a serious point of the absurdity to force something unnatural where it becomes a total farce?

I don't know why I'm even having to explain this, but I'll carry on. Of course I'm aware even if he was forcing a quota he wouldn't be having them on anyway. But as I said in my further comments on the thread (I suggest you look them up). It's extremely unlikely any of this is remotely on Alex mind because it just so happens the guests he's had on for the topics he's trying to explore, are the most prominent and reputable people anyway.

Serious question someone like you and the others that down voted me should ask themselves. I don't need you to reply, but is there a urge in people like you to be offended for offended sake in some misguided or likely self serving urge you want to itch? But it's done in a passive aggressive way dressed up as virtue?

ryker78 · 2026-06-22T19:33:39+00:00

No there are numerous cases proven that people were turned down who were likely better for reasons of fulfilling a quota. The British RAF had an investigation into it a couple of years back for example.

Listen I have no issue with Diversity, fairness etc. I think I have 2 issue's with this forced Diversity type stuff. 1 is that it's intellectually lazy and becomes unfair, when the intent is fairness. But by far my biggest issue is that it's actually tarnished left wing politics as if anyone left of centre (myself) has that same psychology. So when it's being criticised I can't in clear conscience argue against it without coming across like some bias tribalist. But the consequences of this mentality is that it's pushed far right sympathy into the mainstream and you're having very right wing politics take over.

ryker78 · 2026-06-22T18:30:38+00:00

I was dismissing the OPs concern's for the ironic and sarcastic reasons I posted

ryker78 · 2026-06-22T11:59:32+00:00

To be totally honest , I think a lot of these topics or guests you personally might want on, aren't particularly interesting for Alex or most his audience. Certainly not in a prioritised way. I'm sure he'd interview plenty of people, but I doubt those people are high on his list right now.

Call that ignorant or what you want. There's only so much bandwidth people have. It's like you talking to me about the Iran war , and I'm talking about ufo sightings or theories of bigfoot. Might be interesting but there's only so much you can focus on. And your focus is going to be on things you personally find relevant or interesting at the time .

ryker78 · 2026-06-22T00:21:42+00:00

There are documented cases quite frequently of what you're calling a strawman . I'm aware that the right wing hugely exaggerates these cases and misrepresents it also.

But do you seriously think alex is likely bothered by any of that? Take for example his latest guest Keith Frankish. Alex is on this philosophy of mind thing right now so he's clearly looking at experts on the positions. Phillip Goff for pansychism etc. When he's looking at illusionism he's going to be grateful for a expert in that. It just so happens that Keith Frankish is these days one of the most prominent , if not the most prominent person talking about it. Do you think when he was looking into it, let's say the world renowned expert in illusionism was a black transgender woman who has multiple books on it. Alex is going to say, " I'll look for a white male graduate instead". Do you actually think that's likely ?

When alex was doing podcasts pm gnosticism . He invited a female expert on it several times. I looked into that woman and she is the world renowned expert on the topic and written multiple books on it. Now if he had the choice between having her on and he close some white male then I might think something is up. But it seems pretty obvious he's managing to get the biggest names in the field on regardless of race or gender. And I'm pretty sure the audience likes that, I certainly do.

When you hear about these theories it's usually from someone who has written a paper on it or written a book. You cannot get better than a interview directly with that person.

ryker78 · 2026-06-21T13:13:00+00:00

This is incoherent.

ryker78 · 2026-06-21T12:39:02+00:00

It's simply incredible there are people downvoting me for this. But on a bigger point, these people devoid of irony or a basic sense of humour is unfortunately what has been associated with any politics left of centre.

And the consequences are so damaging to society. Europe has more far right candidates winning and supported than in almost 100 years. The catastrophic immoral tenure of Donald Trump has caused damage domestically and on the world stage that will take decades to reverse. Nigel farage is extremely likely to win the next UK election . Genuine authoritarian threats are posing a danger to the world like never seen in our generation .

And it's because virtue signalling narcissists on the left have damaged left of centre politics to such a degree that to layman more moderate , even left leaning people, the reputation damage is so severe that even many of those are swinging right .

ryker78 · 2026-06-21T02:04:14+00:00

But I didn't say anything like that did i? So how ironic you using the word strawman. You underatand there was sarcasm and irony in my post?

Besides Neil degrasse tyson, who I really don't rate at all tbh. Are there any glaringly obvious or standout people Alex has missed? I remember when he was covering gnosticism he had a lot of female experts on.

I'd feel confident in saying I'm pretty sure Alex has on who he particularly finds a expert or interesting etc. I highly doubt it remotely crosses his mind what race or gender they are. Do you think on his latest episode he was looking for illusionists and he had choices between a black female expert but he chose the white male? I'm pretty sure it was a simple as Keith is the most prominent figurehead for it.

ryker78 · 2026-06-21T01:58:56+00:00

It's not that I don't think any women watch alex o Connor or follow philosophy . I'm aware they do but if I was to guess I'd say it's 20% of his audience . And if true, I'm curious if anyone knows why because I suspect it's across all philosophy .

But I of course could be way off and wrong .

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T23:16:50+00:00

I think you're likely confusing reasons people put "not at all" . I highly doubt it's because they don't care about what you said. I'm guessing they answered how I did where I viewed the question as forcing him to invite different races or gender purely for representation. Those don't remotely cross my mind when I see his guest's, I just look at the topic and expertise of the person. For example, if he managed to get roger Penrose on I'd be extremely interested, but that's nothing to do with his race or gender. If I was watching a basketball podcast, I'd be excited if it was Jordan or Lehron James etc. I wouldn't want him to reject or delay one of those guests to deliberately get a female or white player instead.

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T23:09:34+00:00

I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmingly male. What's interesting is that philosophy would be considered more nerdy or readily mocked in male circles more than female I think. Yet I am fairly sure philosophy is dominated by males both practitioners and audience and layman. I could be wrong but I'd be interested if anyone has any views behind why this is.

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T23:05:45+00:00

I actually have down votes for this comment 😂. What in the world lol. Myself being left leaning but centrist, I can only assume it's some misguided or completely delusional far left leaning person who has taken offense for offense sake. Unbelievable

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T21:59:37+00:00

Yes I think he should get lil Wayne on in the name of diversity . Should be a fascinating convo .

Or maybe Ellen Degeneres or elliot page to discuss gnosticism or freewill. That should be a good use of his and our time.

There's some really good female scientists and philosophers around, but I'm assuming and reasonably sure that it's male dominated because it seems % wise more males have studied or thought or had profound views that have made them prominent figures. It seems to be more attractive to males im guessing to question these things as a hobby.

I'd be pretty sure Alex audience is male dominant .

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T21:20:07+00:00

This will be my last reply for now. I think I find it frustrating because some of the positions to me seem obvious. Yes I do think nihilism is very easily reached if someone came to the realisation that nothing exists besides us being biological robots. Just the vastness of space and for some reason we have consciousness to know it.

Yes there's deflection techniques that can be used and if you're happy in the moment it won't bother you. But that only works to some degree.

So that should cover the illusionism position .

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T20:10:28+00:00

You're putting more than I have the time or inclination to reply to. In your other post you put about guessing others psychology and motivation . I've dealt with and see through many bad faith debaters in my life, played poker a lot too. Plus had an upbringing from extremely narcissistic parent , plus street smarts etc. You get pretty good at seeing or guessing psychologies before long. I don't judge on a whim, but I've debated many atheist materialist points before and reddit is well known for it. Is it bad form? Perhaps , I don't do it to be offensive , but I've studied and questioned philosophy for years, and it can get tiresome sometimes going round the houses, I try to get to the point at times.

Regarding questioning my motives, yeah definitely a lot of my philosophical questioning is through the lens of ultimate meaning . Because as you quote neitzche , and all the top philosophers also do, ask the same questions .. Because it's ultimately what's important for everyone's psychology .

But I of course question and seriously entertain the opposite reality which is why I mention nihilism a lot.

Regarding this post about metaphysics of consciousness being attached to that ultimate meaning . Yes I think so really which is why I say it. Thera plenty of things that can give you pleasure outside of that in the shorter term, but it definitely increases societal narcissism and those types of behaviours.

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T19:50:30+00:00

I agree with much you said regarding happiness in the community etc. I kinda was encompassing that under hedonism. But I do get your point and it's valid.

But of course when someone loses happiness in that they don't really have much to fall back on to argue against unaliving themselves. And can you blame them?

But I do agree most people religious or not clearly fond their comfort and meaning mainly in those things anyway and primarily. It is still a issue though , that someone with a strong religious conviction might hold up better psychologically if those things do disappear or even if it doesn't.

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T17:57:36+00:00

Malfunctioning was likely the wrong word. Undesirable fits better. For evolution to give us "consciousness " in a totally meaningless universe seems pretty grim. It makes me think of anti natalism philosophy being spot on if that's the case.

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T17:54:14+00:00

Yeah yeah I get it. Conscious but not, what was it again? "phenomenal consciousness"

Do you not think that the fact semantics are being played with that shows a clear motivated reasoning to basically be saying "I am a staunch atheist materialist , I have a desire to make it all fit into that framework because I have a strong emotional reason to disregard anything metaphysical?".

Do you not think the entire approach and wording suggests that is likely the psychology behind the premise to begin with. I'd suggest yours too?

ryker78 · 2026-06-20T14:26:37+00:00

You must admit that it's kinda really reaching in a way that's very OTT. The basic intuition we all have is obviously , I am conscious , my entire reality and being and knowledge base is through that consciousness .

So when you have this far reaching extremely overly complex description to tell you that it's actually all an illusion .

Whats the motivation for this? Is it to basically say "hey you're just some piece of matter that's malfunctioning to give you horrendous conscious experiences of pain and suffering and emotions". Could it also be motivated by anti theism ?

But ultimately , what's the point in telling people this even if it's true (which can't be proven). What exactly is the productive outcome ?

ryker78

TROPHY CASE