Peter-Andre

@Leo Gura You might be interested in a game called "Really Bad Chess". The rules are basically the same as in regular chess, but the big difference is that players are given a random set of chess pieces each round, so you are forced to improvise a lot more and come up with unique strategies for each match. It's a lot of fun.

I would love to hear you on the Srsly Wrong podcast. They talk a lot about politics and philosophy on that channel, so I think they might be open for a conversation about conscious politics. I think that would make for a great episode.

@Preety_India You could use the same line of argumentation to say that we could also just call them the n-word, since that's also just a reference. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue that though of course. That term has a problematic history and negative connotations. The same goes for "blacks". Edit: I'd also like to add that people often say "blacks" and also use other similar terms like "gays" and "transgenders", and it often gives off the same vibe. Like @Forestluv pointed out, referring to someone just as a noun instead of "[adjective] people" de-humanizes them. It's often an indication of bigotry. I obviously don't think you are a bigot. I'm just saying that that type of language is often associated with bigotry because of its dehumanizing tone.

To the people here who'd like a stage yellow Vaush, I think I may have stumbled across the next best thing. There is this podcast I recently came across called Srsly Wrong (the misspelling is intentional). It's a podcast with two hosts who are both really into philosophy and politics. For each episode they've picked a theme, such as Neoliberalism, Emotional Intelligence, Convenience, Prisons etc. and talk about it on the podcast. What really stands out to me about this podcast is their non-judgemental, neutral attitude, their intellectual honesty and objectivity and their curiosity and desire to explore multiple different perspectives in depth on any given issue. Both hosts are leftists, but I don't get the impression that they are leftists because of ideological reasons, but rather just because that's where they've naturally arrived through doing their own contemplation and research. I don't ever get the vibe that they are ideologues. It really feels like a proper stage yellow podcast. They've published around 229 episodes so far, so it's hard to pick the best episode to recommend to newcomers, but I think one of their latest episodes, about political charts, would be a good start:

@Husseinisdoingfine I'm not even sure why this forum would appeal to them in the first place.

@Leo Gura Do you think humanity is going to stay more or less this way forever, or is it likely that as we progress to a certain point that we'll actually be able to take collective problems like climate change seriously right away and take appropriate action immediately? Actually, come to think of it, we did manage to solve the ozone problem a few decades ago, but of course that was a much smaller problem to deal with than climate change. But even that means that we are at least able to be a little bit proactive, so do you think that humanity's capacity for dealing with collective problems is expanding over time, and in that case, is there is some kind of limit to it. Also, is it possible that our problems are consistently going to be too great for us to deal with relative to our given stage, or even worse, that the scale of disasters we'll be capable of creating will eventually outpace our ability to deal with them.

@Anton Rogachevski I don't get it. Why did you share this article? I'm genuinely confused. What's the point you're trying to make?

@Anton Rogachevski How is this relevant to this thread? I don't get it. I might be missing something.

@Insane butterfly Do you honestly believe that that is the direction progressives are pushing society towards? Is this an exaggeration or do you honestly believe this? I highly encourage you to take some time to actually learn about the progressive movement and try to actually see things from their point of view. A lot of their ideas are actually completely down to Earth, reasonable ideas that make sense if you just spend a few minutes to learn about them.

@Ramu The whole Dr. Seuss thing isn't really as bad as you probably think. The publisher has willingly decided to stop printing and selling some of Dr. Suess' books because those particular books contained racist and insensitive depictions of people. The culture is changing and things that were seen as normal and acceptable in the past are now outdated and won't fly in today's society. My guess is that this was just a smart business decision on their part. But I have no doubt you can still find the books online if you looks for them. They're not exactly censored by the state or anything. It's just that the publisher has stopped printing them. This isn't really an example of "the left going to far", or "cancel culture". It's really pretty harmless.

@Joel3102 One thing is to call out both sides, another is to paint a false narrative that both sides are equally bad when one side is clearly worse than the other.

@sholomar People at stage green are generally more in favor of democratic principles than lower stages. They are not the kind of threat you seem to be describing here. This doesn't really come across as a sincere criticism from above, but rather as a misrepresentation of green. For example, what are some common examples of stage green endorsing dictatorial rule, mass censorship or control of the masses? This seems much more like a textbook example of stage blue, or even red. A stage green society would be much healthier and democratic than that.

@DocWatts I agree. I can see how it can be useful, but I would still be careful with recommending it as an unbiased news source because it strikes me as falling into to the trap of enlightened centrism, I.E. presenting all sides as equal on every issue and always looking for a middle ground on things, even when it's not fair and reasonable to do so.

@Matt23 That doesn't really make it fair and unbiased. It presents the left, the center and the right as though they are equally valid on every issue. The truth is that right wing media outlets tend to be the least reliable and most biased. Although I have to admit that the website did give me a good laugh when I read the three news headlines on this story and saw the right wing headline. It kind of proves my point. Edit: Also, the website is listing news outlets like CNN and The Independent as left wing sources, which I think is kind of ridiculous.

The Associated Press and Reuters are good if you just want unfiltered, unbiased news.

I'm not gonna go into much depth here, since other people here summed up my thoughts on the video pretty well, but in short, I don't like it. However, I wanted to bring up the fact that this video has been discussed on this forum before. Does anyone remember which thread it was? Edit: Nevermind, I found it:

This thread really made me smile. Always nice to see people having the courage to change their minds when they realize they were wrong about something.

So fucking hyped right now!

@mmKay Agreed. English spelling is a nightmare and is in bad need of a reform in my opinion.

@snowyowl That's right. You should check out Renegade Cut's latest video. It talks about this very issue: American conservatives are quick to call anyone slightly left of center a socialist. And what's really comical is that they almost never know the actual meaning of socialism.

@The Don What exactly is your definition of socialism?

@Arcangelo What was the context of this? Did you say that as a response to something else?

What's incredible is that even after all this, he still didn't explicitly say that Joe Biden won and that there will be a transition into a Biden administration. In fact, he is still pushing the whole conspiracy theory that the election was fraudulent.

@Rilles The one with two faces is Tim Pool. The same animator also made this video a few months ago: