aurum

Leftist RFK followers, now voting for Trump, is the ultimate irony.

Alright then. I’ve made my points but it doesn’t appear we are going to reach an agreement on this. I’m exiting this discussion now.

Then let it be non-sensical. At least for now. If you want to go beyond tier 1, you can't get there with more tier 1. Sorry. You have to do something else. Alternatively, just decide you want to stay at tier 1 and that you're done evolving in this way. Except you are misapplying that insight. Just engaging in more tier 1 pragmatism is NOT tier 2. You have to actually discover what is beyond that. What you are describing is an insight that is mostly appropriate for utopian SD Green types. Tier 1 is already deeply rooted in pragmatism, and we are building on top of that. We don't need more of it. No! Tier 2 is a WORLD apart from Green politics. Tier 2 is not on the map. Don't underestimate how big a difference it is.

Sense-making is the process of understanding something through making distinctions. We are engaging in it right now. How did you come to understand mathematics? Or how a door works? There isn't a guarantee of that. Sense-making may have an inverse relationship with power. I wouldn't say negate. But they can distort sense-making through manipulating perception. Slogans essentially brainwash people, which is very effective for political agendas. Note: I'm not saying we should stop using slogans. Well they are engaging in sense-making, just a lower version of it. Big picture, our collective sense-making will not deeply improve without decades of evolution and development globally. Survival is too strong for most people. By improving understanding. But that doesn't mean it will improve any particular political agenda. I am purposefully making no guarantees of that. Sense-making could ruin your political agenda. I watched your video. Essentially it is about political game theory dynamics from a left-wing, SD Green perspective. It's fine overall. A piece of the puzzle. But it's not what I would consider SD Tier 2 politics.

Mincing paradigms, bypassing and false neutrality IS also bad sense-making. Think about why people engage in such behavior. This is a very meta-point.

The fact that politics has real-world outcomes IS what makes it so hard for people to do proper political sense-making. Detachment is essential. No amount of naval-gazing or bypassing accusations will change this. And I DO consider outcomes and impact on people and society when sense-making. There wouldn't be any other way to think about politics since it is all about outcomes. But there is often a cost to understanding, and that cost is usually your political agenda. I'm sorry if that sounds cold, but I don't know how else to explain my perspective at this point. I think we are beginning to go in circles here. We should probably wrap this up unless you have additional new points you want to make. But I did enjoy this back and forth, it challenged me to consider my thoughts.

I agree with all that. In this context, sense-making is not about absolute higher consciousness truths. I am not talking about God-realization or anything like that. I am simply talking about the practical understanding our political situation. No fancy stuff needed. Also, I'm not looking to narrow the point I'm making down to rhetorical strategy. My point is more about the diametrical opposition of political agenda and truth. Rhetorical strategy is just a potential example of that larger dynamic. In theory, rhetorical strategy is values-neutral since anyone with any kind of values could engage in it. But in practice, rhetorical strategy is never values-neutral. It is used by people with specific values and a specific agenda. And in this sense, it certainly can be a hinderance to sense-making. Well I would disagree. I think what I'm saying is relevant. But it's true that it may not be highly actionable if your goal is winning in politics. That isn't my goal. So you can criticize me on that.

Rhetorical strategies and sense-making are essentially inverse functions. When one goes up, the other goes down. And the reason is that strategy is about winning and your agenda, while sense-making is about truth and understanding. Can there be some overlap? Of course. But you have to be careful when assuming these goals will complement each other. Proper sense-making will eventually threaten whatever political campaign someone is running. They certainly can be. It depends on the example we are talking about. Regardless, they are vague, gross oversimplifications that are essentially just designed to galvanize people. A couple points here: 1) I'm not necessarily arguing for just maxing out on information. More information is not necessarily good sense-making. Sometimes it's just a few key points deeply understood that make all the difference. 2) In a way, I think we are agreeing. You agree that the vast majority of people are not interested in serious sense-making, so you want to dumb things down.

This is true. But in practice, much of our political rhetoric looks like a bunch of bullshit with some facts mixed in.

Right, because you and everyone else values winning and pragmatism over sense-making. If you agree to that, we can move on to discussing the pros and cons of that prioritization. You’ve made some good points in favor.

You definitely have potential. How often are you going out?

There is some truth to that perspective. But it's lacking quite a bit. Another perspective on this is that you will get what you prioritize. If you want sex, you need to prioritize getting sex and be prepared to compete with other guys who can be ruthless. You can't just sit at home and do a bunch of self-improvement.

If you want to engage in manipulation to get your political agenda across, fine. I get it. But you're not going to convince me that truth and deep sense-making is driving this process for most people. The political sphere is filled with bullshitting and pragmatism. And that includes the democrats / leftists.

I agree. Especially if your rival is just going to hurl nonsense at you, there is no point trying to defend it all. That is a trap. And that's the whole issue. No one is prioritizing sense-making. Everyone is prioritizing their particular agenda. Which in your case is protecting your husband, immigrants and your reproductive rights. "Fighting the good fight" in practice ends up looking like extreme degradation of the epistemic commons, political polarization and psychological warfare. Watch the Lincoln Project videos if you haven't. They are essentially pure psychological manipulation, without any attempt at serious political sense-making. Top-tier devilry. And I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it. We are essentially at war, so warfare is appropriate. But for those of us attempting to engage in a higher level of political thinking, I want us to be clear about what is happening and the costs.

Bret Weinstein shares a lot of similarities with Jordan Peterson. Both were involved in deep SD Green academia, had problems, and now seemed to have developed a Green shadow because of that. But Bret combines his conservatism with more conspiracy / anti-establishment / anti-modernism thinking than Peterson. From a developmental psychology POV, it seems like maybe a failure to truly integrate and fully move into SD Yellow.

@PsychedelicEagle I’d be careful. You could easily have oral health problems but just not notice any obvious symptoms. Have you checked for gingivitis?

It sounds like you have been chasing extremely shallow forms of sex. Have you had at least one relationship with strong intimacy and romance?

That is part of it. But like I said, I don’t interpret it as the highest priority. An example of a higher priority purpose might be quality sense-making. You are basically talking about maximizing attention, which is a different goal. And you can’t necessarily assume those goals will work together. They may contradict each other.

Well it's not my forum. But that isn't what I interpret the highest priority goal to be.

It might take some time. But you can get your groove back. Remember that you can potentially bring a lot more to the table as a husband now that you are a bit older. This is a genuine advantage.

You’re feeling this way because you are getting older and it does matter. You don’t have infinite time in your sexual peak. Everyone gets a window and then it closes. So if you spent your 20s being single and playing the field, there can be consequences. That all said, you can date at pretty much any age these days. People get divorced and remarried when they are older all the time. The biggest variable is whether you want biological kids, which obviously has a more strict timeline. Also, lots of people are getting married older these days for financial reasons. So 30 is relatively young still. You have time, but if you really want a strong marriage then I’d say it would be wise to get serious about it.

You're probably right about needing a supermajority to get certain policies passed. But the meta point I'm making still stands: no one gets to monopolize the political process. If that happens to mean sacrificing certain progressive policies, then so be it. As far as TYT and Secular Talk, I think they are a net force for good. The progressive voice deserves representation. And someone has to fight the culture war against Blue / Orange.

Sure, I don’t particularly want the repubs to win either. But also let’s not forget that we want political rivals. We want competition of ideas. We want people who disagree with us. That is democracy. A political monopoly of dems is not ideal. That is my biggest issue with Trump and repubs right now. They want to undermine democracy to enforce their agenda. Which leads to the kind of war Rick Wilson is talking about. Both sides have to be mature enough to allow for things not going their way.

@MarioGabrielJ It’s worth noting that mpox is not an airborne contagion, which is one of the things that made covid so damn tricky to deal with.

Dems are winning.