DocWatts

I like this. I've been using proto-fascists as a shorthand, so this works just as well either way One difficulty I see is that people have trouble distinguishing fascists from the most well known example, Nazi Germany, when it can be applied to really any far right authoritarianism with aspirations to set up an ethno-state.

@Leo GuraLate to the party, but in all sincerity that was one of your best videos. While I don't see it convincing anyone who's already down the Conspiracy rabbit hole (for the reasons you describe), it's one of the best resources I've ever come across for people who want a deeper understanding Conspiracy Theories on both a practical and an epistemological level, and something I would recommend to someone who's disturbed by the harms of Conspiracy Theories but may not understand it on a deep level. And considering the challenges society is facing right now, I also think it's one of the most timely and important videos I've seen over the last year or two of watching your channel. Kudos man.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa The antifa scare mongering is an intentional bad faith argument by the right to draw attention away from social movements taking place in the country, and to draw false (and absurd) equivalency between protest movements against racism and police brutality with right wing domestic terrorism.

Just came across this on Reddit, point was too good not to share (for those outside of the states, the previous Republican Governor's criminal negligence was responsible for a humanitarian crisis that left an entire city without drinkable water for several years).

Some of the more formative books that I've read, In no particular order: - The Seven Mysteries of Life : Guy Merchie - Ishmael : Daniel Quinn - The View from Nowhere : Thomas Nagel - Guns, Germs, and Steel : Jared Diamond

I'll qualify 'saving the world from a nuclear war' as a checkmark in favor of him being a very good president. Sad thing is he only got to serve 3 years before being assassinated, so we don't really know what sort of legacy he would have left if he'd been in office for 4 or 8 years.

Well 'good' is going to be somewhat subjective, and subject to the political bias of the person answering the question, but I'd argue the last president that was respected by a broad cross section of the American public (regardless of political affiliation) would probably be Dwight Eisenhower, or possibly JFK to a much lesser degree. Keep in mind that this is more than half a century ago, with things getting increasingly fragmented the closer we get to the present day.

Never thought I'd be living in a time when the President is encouraging armed insurrection on Twitter, but here we are.

Things have gotten so bad I'd count a Conservative party that's not actively trying to undermine democracy, doesn't deny the reality of Climate change, and has an economic platform that's not just 'loot the country' as a major win for the long term prospects of our country.

It's not just Trump who's out of touch, of the last 7 presidential elections, the Republican party has only managed to win the popular vote one time. I'm hoping they either implode and are replaced by something better, or eventually change thier policy platform to a more moderate one that appeals to more people, so they don't have to resort to fanning the flames of racist resentment and voter disenfranchisement to win elections. Of course all evidence points to them just furthering thier attempts to subvert democracy to win elections, so my hopes aren't exactly high...

The Republican Party literally needs this to win elections, as their voting base is shrinking due to societal and demographic changes (appealing primarily to wealthy people but more importantly to whites who harbor racial resentment), and are going to do everything in thier power to block reforms to make the system more fair and democratic.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry for how true this is...

@Leo Gura (or @ anyone here who's knowledgeable about psychology as a field of study). Just out of curiosity, how rigorous is the Myers-Briggs personality profile as a psychological model? From what I've heard from various people in the psychological community is that the Myers-Briggs profile is something that isn't taken seriously by professionals; just wondering if it's possible that I'm missing something here.

He makes a good argument, and if it came down to a popular vote (or at least a fair election without widespread voter suppression amidst a pandemic) I'd have more confidence in his analysis.

The rats are leaving the sinking MAGA ship.

We're in uncharted territory here. I don't think anyone really know what's going to happen, but Trump will almost certainly contest the election results, and even if Joe Biden wins in a landslide I would expect Civil Unrest during in the immediate aftermath. Also lots of ignorant posts by right wingers quoting '1984' because of the conspiracy theories vomiting out of the mouth of the candidate who ran the country in to the ground and then lost the election.

Seems like a shame that such a well thought out and insightful video has something like 150 views. I'll definitely be checking out more of his channel.

Correct. And of course it's a progression from being uncomfortable /morally opposed towards LGBTQ people, then a transition to being passively accepting of LGBTQ people, and if they continue developing that will transition in to actively fighting for LGBTQ rights and inclusion. Also from a developmental level, most Orange folks still have a limited understanding of what discrimination and exclusion looks like, and are only cognizant of the most direct and obvious forms of it.

Just anecdotally, but I happen to know a number of Orange Libertarian types who are totally on board with LGBTQ rights, they just approach the issue differently than someone at Stage Green or Yellow would.

Not sure whether this would be more at home here or in the Society and Politics section, but alas... I've been thinking back lately on a book a read earlier this year : 'Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. It's a fascinating and nuanced look at the creation of the atomic weapons program by the United States during World War II, and goes in to quite some detail about the lives and personalities of several of the key scientists involved in the creation of the Bomb including Einstein, Niels Bohr, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, and John von Neumann just to name a few. But the most fascinating portrait to emerge of the was that of Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos laboratory where the world's first atomic explosion was made a terrifying reality. Robert Oppenheimer himself was a man full of contradictions; a brilliant lab director who was able to understand a multitude of scientific disciplines, he was also someone who was deeply interested in Eastern religions and spirituality (keep in mind this was the 1940s before this sort of thing was common in the West). A person who had the interpersonal skills to manage the titanic egos of the scientists involved in the project, he was also someone who was deeply depressed for much of his life. But most importantly, this is someone arguably responsible for one the greatest crimes in the history of mankind by ushering in the age of nuclear weapons, who developed a deep sense of shame and regret after seeing the horrific consequences of their use on two cities full of civilians. And understanding the threat that he had helped unleash on the world, this is a man who had his life and career destroyed in his attempts to advocate for peace and make sure that these weapons were never used again. I'd be curious as to where someone like this would map on to Spiral Dynamics, as he was far from a static person, and seems kind of hard to map.

Any reason for this in particular? Being an engineer or a scientist encompasses a particular worldview, and for scientists in particular many of them have changed the world for good or ill in lasting and profound ways. Especially for some one like Oppenheimer whose life and work can't really be separated from the moral and ethical dimensions of the world changing discoveries he helped usher in.

If you want to support third parties, vote in candidates who are willing to support electoral reforms such as Ranked Choice voting. As it stands now, there's not even a remotely level playing field for third parties and independents. This ^ ^ ^. If you want to see a Green party policy platform enacted (as I do), your best bet is to support progressive Democrats that will help move the Democratic party's policy platform left. Also be appreciative of the fact that a Democratic Socialist and a candidate supporting Universal Basic Income have not only moved from the fringes towards the mainstream, but are having an active influence on the policy platform for the Democratic Party.

Bush was both better and worse. Better in the sense that he was just kind of a simple guy pushing a Blue / Orange ideology rather than a blatant authoritarian trying to subvert democracy, but I'd argue that he was also worse in the sense that the veneer of respectability obfuscated the looting of the country that's been a staple of the Republican party for decades. At least with Trump, the plutocratic tendencies have moved out in to the open, and unclothed the Emperor, so to speak. Not arguing some sort of false equivalency between the two, as Trump is obviously much more dangerous, but there is a clear progression from Reagan to Bush to Trump at work here.

Just something interesting that I recall Don Beck mentioning during an Interview is that he would probably map himself as Blue in SD.