DocWatts

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/23/report-trump-campaign-actively-discussing-radical-measures-to-bypass-election-results/?fbclid=IwAR2kCAb26TOQ7U1uCwkZtvFuShn3imqR61H0lLc2_4h3wHyJKlGCj1mSqTk#5374ea5c4800 From the article: "A jarring new report from The Atlantic claims that the Trump campaign is discussing potential strategies to circumvent the results of the 2020 election, should Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump, by first alleging the existence of rampant fraud and then asking legislators in battleground states where the Republicans have a legislative majority to bypass the state’s popular vote and instead to choose electors loyal to the GOP and the sitting president" ______________________________________________ This doesn't seem like it should be possible in a modern affluent Democracy, but then again, this is America, and Trump is like a cornered animal who's happy to burn the country down to avoid being held accountable for his actions.

I know the world is insane right now and Trump supporters are some of the most ignorant people on the planet, but I'm still having a hard time believing this isn't coming from a satirical news source like The Onion.

Is the shift towards progressive stage Green values primarily motivated by Pope Francis himself, or does it extend beyond him as a larger value shift for the leadership of the Catholic Church? When Pope Francis does end up passing on, what are the odds that whoever is elected as the next Pope continues advocating for progressive social justice reforms?

Having flashbacks of the Colbert Report, where the character he was playing goes on a quest to find a black friend to prove to the world how non-racist he was.

The business model for a 24 hour news network just by its very nature invites the use of manipulative tactics to retain viewership (and provide eyeballs for their advertisers). That said, anyone claiming false equivalency between Fox News and MSNBC or CNN is either massively misinformed, or intentionally making a bad faith argument. I would think one solution for this would be public investments in organizations that aren't reliant on a toxic business model to support high quality investigative journalism. That could be something like an American equivalent of the BBC (which theoretically would be PBS if it were funded), or more support for privately owned but reputable news source like the New York Times that have a less problematic business model to support its journalism.

Really scary that something like a quarter of the country is using this as their primary news source, and no surprise that a propaganda channel has people terrified and misinformed. I went back and watched some Walter Cronkite footage from the sixties not too long ago, and the contrast in the quality of TV news reporting between then and now is pretty shocking. I suppose good investigative journalism still exists, but Corporatism really ripped the heart out of news sources that reach a wide audience.

While a Biden landslide is looking more and more likely, if the election does end up being close, it's entirely likely we may have a repeat of the 2000 election and not have an unambiguous winner by the time the polls close Nov 3.

From a purely self preservation standpoint, I do wonder what the odds are of Trump stepping down during the lame duck period so that Pence can pardon him?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden?ref=home Cool, I hope the government seizes all of his assets if he tries to leave the country, though hoping that he takes his Cult with him is probably asking a bit much. Also I must of misjudged Biden, as I had no idea he was "worst candidate in the history of American politics".?

Agreed, and I would also add on to that : if they're ready for it, meaning they've been in a current stage for awhile, and have reached a level of development where they're experiencing some of the limitations of thier current stage.

Over the past few years it's been pretty shocking to see how fragile Democratic norms and institutions are in America, and how blatantly authoritarianism is being acceded to by roughly a third of the country (and yes, I'm placing anyone who's still planning on voting for Trump 2020 in to that category). Plausible ignorance of Trump 's (and most of the Republican Party's) disdain for Democracy isn't a credible excuse, like it could be argued for in previous elections.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that one needs to be afraid of something to see the harm that it causes and be opposed to it. I'm not afraid of Factory Farms, but I'm opposed to them because of the unnecessary suffering they cause, and because they contribute to Climate Change. I'm not afraid of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but I'm opposed to it because it gives people an excuse to feel self righteous about selfish and unhealthy behavior. I'm not afraid of Conspiracy Theories, but I'm opposed to them because of the obvious harm that conspiratorial thinking has caused to society, and because of how toxic and unhealthy of a worldview it is for the person holding it.

The contained honour systems inherent in sports seem like a good fit to channel Red's drive for power and status in a relatively healthy and constructive way. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe sports were used in a highly constructive way in South Africa to help build solidarity between the two populations after the end of Apartheid (work Don Beck had a direct hand in). The philosopher Tamler Sommers makes an interesting case for the value of contained honor systems in his book 'Why Honor Matters' (he doesn't explicitly use a Spiral Dynamics framework as part of his argument, but it maps pretty cleanly on a developmental model like SD).

That's a very good point. I think it also helps one be aware of thier own privilege when considering the needs of others, and become a more compassionate person.

Haven't seen Peter Singer or Effective Altruism mentioned or discussed much in this forum, so I thought I might make a thread to the topic. If you're unfamiliar with Peter Singer, he's an Australian moral philosopher and philanthropist who's one of the founders of the Effective Altruism movement. The basic thrust of his argument is that Affluent people (by this he means middle class and wealthy people living in Developed countries) have a moral obligation to contribute some portion of their wealth to combatting Global Poverty, for the following reasons : (1) 734 million people are still living in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day, adjusted for purchasing power parity), and do not have access to the basic necessities of life (clean drinking water, food, shelter, electricity, basic health care, basic education). (2) Evidence based charitable programs targeted towards people living in extreme poverty parts of the world has proven to be a highly successful and cost effective way of combating human misery. It costs very little money to immunize someone against a deadly disease, or to provide someone clean drinking water. (3) The one billion or so affluent people of the world have far more than they need to live a happy and fulfilling life, and can make a highly meaningful contribution to ending global poverty at relatively little cost to themselves. One estimate from his book is that a yearly transfer of $130 - 200 from every affluent person in the world would be enough to lift every person in the world out of extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day). This amounts to less than %1 of the annual income for a middle class person living in the United States. (4) In addition, people living in developed countries have directly harmed the global poor by contributing to Climate Change. This is a problem that the global poor have had little hand in contributing to, but will be a continued hardship going forward as it's burdens will be shouldered disproportionately by people who live in warmer regions and depend on agriculture to support themselves and their families. Chartable donations from affluent people in developed nations can also be thought of us a sort of reparation, or a small measure of justice, from this point of view. * This is a side note, but on the topic of putting money towards political advocacy groups to work for Systemic Change rather than Charitable Giving is something he's open to, but he challenges the person considering this to have a clear vision for how to effect political change, and to have a realistic avenue for implement said changes. ___________________________________________ Understanding psychology and the limits of human nature, and that not everyone is a saint willing to make huge sacrifices for someone far away, he proposes a progressive Giving Scale (structured in a similar way to progressive taxation) for what a reasonable person might consider giving to charity without imposing too great of a burden on themselves. Understand that there are just super general guidelines to give people an idea of where to begin rather than a hard rule. And of course this will vary depending on one's circumstances. Peter Singer's Suggested Charitable Giving Scale (amounts are given in US dollars) : $40,00–$81,000: 1% $81,001–$140,000: 1% of the first $81,000 and 5% of the remainder $140,001–$320,000: 1% of the first $81,0005% of the next $59,000, and 10% of the remainder $320,001–$480,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, and 15% of the remainder $480,001–$2,000,000:1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, and 20% of the remainder $2,000,001-$11,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000,10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, and 25% of the remainder $11,000,001—$53,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, 25% of the next $9,000,000, and 33.3% of the remainder OVER $53,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, 25% of the next $9,000,000, 33.3% of the next $42,000,000, and 50% of the remainder. ___________________________________________________________________________ I find his argument really compelling (and have for some time now), but I am curious as to listen to other perspectives on the subject.

Yeah, well you know what... that strikes me as true, point well taken. The framework and motivation between UBI and Direct Giving through charities have a fundamental difference in their motivations, which matters, but they should still be comparable in the actual effect is has on the person receiving the transfer (whether it's UBI or ongoing cash transfers through a Direct Giving program).

Of course, and obviously that's going to require a Systemic Solution as the world continues to develop, but it's also something that's not going to happen overnight. Also isn't the idea of just handing out cash to people the whole idea behind Universal Basic Income?

I actually happen to agree with this, but at the same time I realize that the kind of the sort of large scale changes needed for a more just and equitable world are going to take time; what's a realistic time frame for an overhaul of the global economic system, and how many people aren't meeting their human potential until that happens? Especially if you happen to take a development lens towards looking at the world's problems, it should be apparent that the timescales we're looking at are likely to be generational. Thinking about it as an either/or dichotomy between Social Activism and supporting effective Charities is the fundamentally the wrong mindset to take in my view. Charitable work isn't meant to be substitute for advocating for a more just world, but rather a supplement to it. Organizations with targeted aid towards alleviating global poverty have literally helped millions of the most needy people in the world; some of their successes include the virtual elimination of Smallpox and Guinea Worm. The number of people living in extreme poverty is around half of what it was just thirty years ago (this wasn't entirely due to the charitable work by NGOs, but targeted charitable aid played a significant role in this). It's also important to keep in mind that this is targeted aid, using an evidence driven model to identify where aid can do the most good per dollar, and a relatively modest amount of money can immunize a large number of people from deadly and preventable diseases, or provide the support networks to help lift people out of poverty and become self sufficient. "A society with more justice needs less charity" is a sentiment I agree with, but at the same time it's important to recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and there are huge obstacles to implementing a more just system across the entire planet. Yes billionaires shouldn't exist, but long as they do, isn't it worthwhile that some number of them are choosing to give away almost all of their wealth for worthwhile causes? Asking some portion of people in affluent nations to donate a small part of their income to help those in need can make a meaningful impact in the world.

@commieContributing to end global poverty if you're fortunate enough to live in an affluent nation and advocating for social change isn't mutually exclusive, and I'd argue that both are necessary. And yes the amounts are quite low, but if that's being raised from hundreds of millions of people, it amounts to more money than you would think (if the above scale with its very modest values was adopted by people living in affluent countries it would amount to $600 billion dollars a year, which obviously dwarfs what countries are currently spending on aid to developing countries). Also this gives something concrete and tangible that almost any conscientious person in an affluent country can do to make the world a better place. And of course the rich have money because they're siphoning it from others, but what's an average person in a developed country going to do about it? Most middle class or even moderately well off people aren't in a position to shift the entire structure of our society (even those of us that happen to live in Democracies), these things take time. Often it takes the dying off of a previous generation that was hostile to change for society to move forward. Those numbers above were made with concessions to human psychology in a consequentialist framework, with the hope that by asking a reasonable amount that's sustainable and not detrimental at all to someone's quality of life, more people will be willing to contribute.

Like a lot of his content, I think it only becomes useful if someone is already at a certain stage of development, as this video isn't really something you can show someone who's down a Conspiracy Rabbit to get them to question their own views, as the ego backlash will prevent them from getting anything out of the video (especially the opening 20 minutes). But that's not the video's goal; it's more to get people who already aware of the dangers of Conspiratorial Thinking to have a deeper understanding of why the mindset behind Conspiratorial Thinking is flawed, knowledge that they can then use in more practical ways when they're interacting with people in the real world (or at least that's the sense I got from the video).

Well you know what... Fair point. For what it's worth that was meant more as an assessment of the current environment rather than an absolute statement, about where our attention should be focused right now. I take your meaning though, and it's a good point to keep in mind.

Here's a link to the article; https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/5922301002 Tldr version: the FBI thwarted a plot for an armed militia group to storm the Michigan capital building and kidnap Governor Whitmer with the express intent to try her for treason and/or execute her. This came largely as a response to Trump's 'Liberate Michigan' tweets.

I've noticed that Existentialism is a popular philosophy among people at an Orange level of development; it definitely was for me back in my early twenties, with its emphasis on having the freedom to construct your own meaning in response to Nihilism. There are definitely flaws with existentialism as a philosophy, but on the whole I see it as a relatively healthy response to nihilism for someone at that stage of development; and of course something to be transcended once you develop a bit more and begin to finding meaning and value in your relationships with other people.

Communism is an outdated ideology that almost no one takes seriously these days (exists on the fringes, but little to no political power). Might as well focus on the political extremist faction that's seeing a resurgence and literally killing people. Yeah I might see Communism as not a great or realistic solution to the world's problems, but they're not the ones driving cars in to groups of people and being dog whistled to political violence in the United States these days.

Touché! Well said.