Zizzero

Yeah, and they are wrong. And wanting to make someone lose his job because you feel entitled because you feel like a victim is no justification for the damage you are creating. Then change the channel when you don't like what they're saying. You don't have a right not to be offended. And that's coming from someone who knows what it's like to be bullied for something you have no control over. You can ignore someone's words, but you can't ignore losing your job. Everyone will be confronted with all sorts of perspectives they wont like. Building a giant echo chamber is no solution to end suffering. No one goes around beating up non binary people because they heard a joke.

Imagine the level of ego to really think that you not liking someone's views is a reason for them to lose their job. Especially when your beliefs are as philosophically weak of a position as the non-binary lunacy. If feminism is what you perceive as the epitome of green, then you don't understand what green is.

Green can be summarized quite easily: Green believes that people should treat each other with compassion and empathy and people shouldn't be assholes towards one another. The left's cultural appropriation stance is not about compassion; quite the opposite actually; it's about being so in love with ideas of virtue and justice that you fail to look at whose in front of you. The result is people like Bernie Sanders saying stuff like "If you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." Should a white person dress up for Halloween in a way that makes fun of a minority? No. Why? Because of how it makes the people he interacts with feel worse and because it simply lowers the vibe. That is not the left's argument. The argument is that you are nothing more but a personification of a group you're part of. It's this idea that you can attribute the attributes of a whole group to every individual this groups consists of - identity politics. The problem then is not how the act of ridiculing a culture makes individuals feel, it's that someone from the dominant group did it. I don't care if that's stage green or blue or purple - it's wrong either way. It's nothing other than saying that someone's rights should depend on what their born as. Regardless of who you are, you are not allowed to do what your step-brother does because your skin is paler than his. I seriously once heard a left-winger tell me that in the US a homeless white person is more privileged than a black millionaire. Blue doesn't necessarily think it's own tribe is the best. This is this white supremacy myth; there is virtually no one in the whole world who thinks that white people are better than non-whites. But what there is, is a lot of people who believe that they have a right live exclusively with people their own race and who believe that other races and cultures are perfectly ok as long as they don't interact with one another. Most blue people don't believe they are the best, they just want their own to stay away from the other. That is blue - the idea that the human species should primarily be looked at as different groups and the dynamic between these groups. Characterizing people as "us" and "others". The idea that you own your culture and have the right to exclude others from your culture - which is the whole premise this nonsense is build around - is blue as well. My advice to these people would be to not base your identity around your race, sexual orientation or nationality. If the intention was truly to protect the weak, then the left would say exactly that: "be more sensitive to how you make others feel". No need to bring race into it. Instead they entangle themselves in regressive black and white power fantasies and are completely oblivious to the nuances of human interactions.

Someone having a problem with cultural appropriation reveals more about them than the person whose action they're criticizing. Stage orange doesn't have a problem with it as you realize on this stage that you should treat people as individuals and not as personification of a group they're part of. Stage green doesn't have a problem with it as - unlike blue - it focuses on what makes us the same rather than what separates us. Healthy green is in support of more cultural appropriation; let's bring people together. To have a problem with cultural appropriation, you'd either have to be stage blue or have a blue shadow. It shows that you are overly identified with your race or culture and that you're thinking of yourself as a member of a tribe in relation to a member of another tribe. You don't own a culture, you're merely born a certain way. You haven't created your culture and are therefore not entitled to exclude others from it.

How would you explain it without SD? Throw that model out the window. If you believe their comparison is incorrect, then explain why it's incorrect. Don't bring in some model to do the work for you. I mean your post basically boils down to "I am right and others are wrong. How do I change their mind?" That it probably the most arrogant and close-minded mindset to have when arguing with other people. If you're using SD to confirm your own beliefs, then you're using it wrong.

You haven't answered my question: How did I position myself? You write This is not true, or to be more precise; this is just you assuming things about me so that I fit into the orange colored box you want to put me in. The question still stands; where did I post anything to position myself within the climate debate? The only sentence I wrote which implies a stance is the following: Here I mock the green parties that we see in various countries in the West. It does not tell you anything about my believes on the science or politics on this topic. You don't know anything about me or my motivations, so please stay away from assuming stuff and asking intellectual honesty of me just because your image of me doesn't align with what I write. Listen, I understand that my views very often aren't welcomed here which made me consider more than once whether I want to stop my activity on this forum. I typically only write stuff when I feel like I'm qualified to offer something and when it feels like it needs to be said. On one hand, I know that I did in fact help some people on here understand certain topics better, show a new perspective or gave good advice. Then again, if I'm perceived as the lighter of firecrackers in a piano lesson, then I also think that I should respect that Leo and most others on here have a different idea on what direction the right direction to evolve towards is than me. This is your forum, not mine and it's not my intention to disturb the harmony in here. I mean what's the point of even writing something in here when I know beforehand that people will dismiss it as unconscious even though I perceive it to be a blind spot for the echo chamber in here? Idk, I'm open for feedback. Will probably think about this the next few days; it sounds like something interesting to contemplate...

Above you see my initial post; please tell me how I positioned myself. What you're doing right now is dishonest.

How fast and by how much is the climate changing? How fast and by how much will the climate change in the future How much of an impact do humans have on climate change? / How different would the climate be if humans didn't exist How much of an impact does CO2 in particular have on climate change? How much are we as a species in control of the climate and how can we control or influence it What are the consequences of climate change? What are the benefits of it and what is the harm of it? Who is responsible to do something about climate change and how much of the responsibiliy lies on each of these groups or individuals? Where do we draw the line between freedom/autonomy and climate protection? And whose freedom are we limiting and by how much? And to each of these questions the follow-up: How certain are we about that? How much does uncertainty change the level of necessity of taking action? For example; does the uncertainty of this topic influence our ability to justify stronger regulations on the political level? "WhAt ClImAtE dEbAtE?" @Serotoninluv @Apparition of Jack "EvErYoNe WhO dIsAgReEs WiTh Me Is UnCoNsCiOuS" Sorry folks, I just felt an itch to post this. Still love you all, though

What she says is rhetorically skilled, but philosophically boring. She doesn't add anything to the climate debate. I mean she literally repeats the same stuff the green left has been saying for as long as I can be remember; a bit of anti-capitalism here, a bit of feeling entitled to tell other people what to do there and the overly dystopic predictions that in the end always turned out to be wrong... I'm a bit worried about her too as her worldview is way too fatalistic. Stop feeding her all these apocalyptic images and let her live her life. It's one thing to fight for a movement you believe in, but don't lose yourself doing it. just my two cents

As I said; TYT is part blue, part green. TYT and related individuals and their close mindedness, arrogance, hypocrisy, level of bullying and identity politics are not what I would call progressive and definitely not what I would call high quality or conscious. I see them as part of the regressive left. But you and I have had similar arguments before on this forum, so I don't want to derail this for any longer. I believe I made my points clear.

Wilber actually agrees with me that a portion of green regressed to blue.

Yes. But green does not demonize people; it demonizes stages and ideas. Blue is "you are part of the others, so you're evil and I wont even talk and I will definitely not listen to you". Green is "you are part of the others, but we are in this world together. We are all the same species."

Green is not tribalistic. A green left-winger would not demonize Trump supporters, he would rather perceive them like children; as someone who needs help and guidance. Green builds bridges, it does not divide. If I'd call you deplorable, I would not be building a bridge between the two of us. Green is relativistic and humble, not combative and absolutist; that's blue. TYT is a perfect example of green ideas regressing into blue and being held as absolut truths.

It's tribalism and absolutism. They are blue/green to be more precise. But there is definitely an "us against them" mentality and black and white thinking - that is stage blue. They are, ironically, stage blue about stage green topics.

Calling Trump supporters deplorables is not green; that's blue. I'm all for stage green sources, but calling blue high quality - nope

Don't the Young Turks call Trump supporters "deplorables"? Also, people like Sam Seder or Michael Brooks? Seriously? What do any of these have to do with values like spirituality, open-mindedness, and above all: LOVE? How do they pass just a single one of the criteria for what makes a political analysis "high quality"? This is getting ridiculous. Honestly Leo, at this point it would be more honest if you were to drop labels like "high quality political analysis" and "conscious politics". These are just marketing tools to sell your opinions. Things sell better when you say that your political analysis is not just a normal political analysis; they are a conscious one. What is your goal here, Leo? You clearly hold people to different standards based on where they are on the political spectrum. You either have massive blind spots when it comes to politics or you aren't honest about your intentions. There's some scary "the end justifies the means" vibe in here.

100000% Me being from Switzerland, When I started to follow US-politics I remember I was very surprised to hear that abortions are so controversial in the US because in Europe there are not a lot of pro-life people. I was pro-choice all my life and I always found it kind of commonsensical to be pro-choice. But what shocked me even more is that even many of the pro-choice people in the US seem to go too extreme; I mean there are a lot of people who support late term abortions which is something almost no one would ever even consider in Europe. Following the politics of a few countries I really came to appreciate Switzerland actually. A month ago I saw a political talk show in Swiss tv about climate change and the coming election in Switzerland. A social democrat, a free market liberal and a conservative sat at the same table and they couldn't agree on anything. The social democrat was like: "Climate change is the biggest problem, we all must act quickly!", the liberal was like: "yeah, I would support some taxes to help the climate. But let's have the market solve it" and the conservative said: "Switzerland is already doing more than anyone else. Let's not hurt our economy even more because of some unproven theory". These members of parliament could not disagree more, yet they talked to one another like colleagues. Even when it got heated, you could feel the mutual respect for one another. It was so refreshing to see this. What do you think is the reason for this binary nature in US politics? think this has a lot to do with the political system of the United States. The winner-takes-all principle, having a two-party system and only an indirect democracy creates a very game-like nature of politics. To compare it with Switzerland which has a system where both the seats in the government and the parliament are distributed proportionally to what people voted and the people can directly vote yes or no to changes in the constitution or the law; if either political side wants to change something, they have to find some sort of middle ground to have a majority that supports this change in policy. Demonization of the enemy is not a successful strategy. Also, because Swiss people vote for or against policies and not for or against people, the political discourse is more focused on the topic, rather than name-calling. Your post actually just inspired me to think that what the US needs more than good policies is a movement that actively wants to change the political system of its country. The US might have the worst political system I know of in the western world. (Of course such a change of constitution would never be supported by the US population, though)

I argued for why the man in the video and I believe Trump was elected. This post of yours appears to be a plea against Trump. So, I'm not sure in what way your response was actually related to what I said. Nevertheless, your post carries a vibe of exactly what I mean when I write "the Democrates still haven't figured that stuff out". Basically a mentality of; "Trump is dishonest about what his motivations are and his voters are unfortunately not as smart as me to see through the facade." Just look at how you imply that the issues you used as example in any way have obvious solutions to them. If you honestly study something like abortions, you'll realize that what a good abortion law looks like is not at all obvious. The left is currently doing all they can to lose again in 2020 as most of them still see their failure in 2016 as a result of there just being too many devils around. But why wouldn't they do that? Life lives itself more comfortably when you're riding the high horse.

Summary of the video: His claim is that Trump got elected because the left doesn't give a shit about the American working class and their everyday-concerns. His analysis seems accurate to me. Don't call it surface-level; the Democrates still haven't figured that stuff out. People don't like it when you tell them what to think and question their ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Trump's approach was simple: I'm not better than normal people (shown even by his use of language; he talks like normal people, not like a politician or academic) and I will fight for the political issues that matter to you - the people. I will not ignore you. Trump was a breath of fresh and not another politician who, so many Trump-voters found, ignores them.

"The only solution to polarization is integrating polarities" Wilber: "Or war" lol. society is fucked

Even though a parallel-thread (top 5 cities and SD) has some talk going on about feminism and toxic masculinity/femininity, I still see this as more fitting here. Also, I'm aware there's a thread about this interview with Eckhart Tolle already, but there wasn't much talk about the content of what Eckhart actually said - An on point political analysis. Wonder how long it takes till someone will call him alt-right for what he said here 12:55 onwards is topic-related

I don't think the fastest road to anything is desire. But I'm not an expert on spiritual things, so I'm not an expert on the big picture connections between judgement and emotions. But sure, when you truly love something you accept it for how it is and treat it with compassion rather than judgement. Judgment seems to me like it fundamentally comes from a place of not-understanding; you don't understand the thing you judge and decide to view it as an error; as something that "he should not have done" for example. More practically speaking when it comes to social interactions: Instead of having a picture in mind of how this other person is supposed to be according to your moral beliefs, give them space to be themselves instead and have empathy and seek to understand them. However, this note is important because that's what nearly every green-person does wrong: Realizing that they are less developed than you does not count as understanding them. Forget this spiral dynamics stuff when talking to people; forget these labels. Don't put people in boxes. You say that you are green or higher, so it should not be news that people aren't evil. Everyone is just trying their best. To put everything I said into one sentence: Treat them like they are your best friend: You know that your best friend has a lot of mistakes to him, but you love him anyway. Also, you don't really care whether a topic is orange or green or turquoise, - me and my best friend we typically tell the same jokes and stories every time when we hang out - you just enjoy the vibe that you and your best friend have together. Just imagine these people were yellow who like to talk about orange topics: there goes your judgement.

@Andrewww There will always be people who will judge you. Time's not worth worrying about that. People judge cause that's what people do. But now, if you want a real challenge it's not just letting go of you judging them for who they are, it's letting go of judging them for judging you - that's when no-judgement gets really difficult. As I said, people are people; they are nothing scary. Just treat them as what they are and not as what you project onto them. No worries, you got this

People can do with their lives whatever they want, it does not matter what you want. What you consider to be "better" might not be better in their eyes. What prevents you from relating to them probably isn't their development, but your judgment of their lack of development. In terms of practical advice, here's what I'd suggest: 1. Let go of your judgement. Treat them as human beings, not as colors. 2. Don't impose your values on them; they have every right to do things differently than you and it doesn't make them bad people. What I mean is this: I rarely drink alcohol. When I go out into nightclubs for example and people ask me why I don't drink, I don't tell them that drinking water is better health-wise and that they probably only drink alcohol to cope with suppressed traumas even though it's probably true. I just tell why I made that decision and don't make a big deal out of it. No one likes teachers and know-betters, rather; people like people who treat them as equals. So, you don't want a clash of values, then don't clash values. However, I'm not saying don't have a spine or your own opinions; just don't lower the vibe of the interaction.

@Andrewww I'd start with not judging them for being whatever stage you peg them to be and realize that they're just human beings like you. Why do I think you're judging them? Well, your choice of words like this being "something to adapt to" or this being a problem worth sharing shows me that you kinda look down on them. Oh, and then there's you saying that a lack of stage green is a red flag. Seriously, just treat them like you would treat any other person and let go of this "the people around me are so underdeveloped"-mentality; that's just ego which loves to tell itself how high up on the SD-hierarchy it is. And if you want to talk about a topic that is a bit more nuanced for the average person then do what you're doing right now: The Internet is your friend