DocWatts

For an example a bit closer to home, this article brings up an interesting case to expand Voting Rights to people under the age of 18. https://www.vox.com/2015/11/28/9770928/voting-rights-for-kids

Awesome, thanks!

I also think that if a compelling argument isn't made as to why politics is relevant to someone's day to day life, the default position is to treat politics as an abstract notion that they pay attention to once every four years, then forget about for the times in between.

"What's going on right now isn't normal" is a mantra everyone should be repeating to themselves right now. I think of people like my grandparents, who are sweet lovely people, but think Trump is off putting because he's a loudmouth who insults people, and not because he's a authoritarian con man who's looting the country and causing long term damage to democratic institutions.

On another note I've heard good arguments that a lot of the 'undecideds' are actually Trump voters who are too ashamed to admit it.

Yup, and one of the inherent contradictions is that people who don't believe in democracy (and would rather be living in a white ethno-state) can use thier votes to elect candidates to dismantle and destroy Democracy.

Wasn't familiar with the 48 Laws of Power but now I'm intrigued.. Is it something like a modern day version of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'?

Masterful depiction by James Gandolfini of how someone at stage Red handles difficult emotions

Agreed, but the system you're describing only works if both sides are acting in Good Faith and have a modicum of respect for one another, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. In a healthy and functioning Democracy, the system you're describing would be the way to go. Becomes very hard to have a meaningful dialogue when the opposing political factions are living in completely different versions of reality. Only way I could see that happening is if the moderator is a stage Yellow person with a deep understanding of how to facilitate dialogue between people with wildly different worldviews, *and* both parties were there in Good Faith.

If we had a system in America that was as democratic as it claims to be then sure. With the rules being what they are, we've had two of the last five elections go to the candidate who lost the popular vote.

Just imagining a world where Bernie is taking Trump to task on the bullshit erupting out of his mouth (and doing so with conviction in a way that connects with people), instead of an uninspiring old man who's plan is to hope that Trump self destructs and he wins by default, without having to inspire people or get anyone excited for what a Biden presidency would look like. Might as well have had a loaf of white bread at that other podium for all the good that these debates are doing. Trump has had four years to make an ass of himself; I just hope that working class and elderly people in the Swing states have become sick of Trump's antics, and that a peaceful transition of power can take place (can't believe I'm actually saying this).

I know Leo touched on this briefly in the Spiral Dynamics Stage Red video, but I thought I might bring it up again to get some other thoughts and opinions. While one might argue that it's splitting hairs to even bring up the question because at the very least he's an authoritarian con-man who needs to be removed from Power regardless, I'd push back on that a bit by saying that it can still be useful for framing the Discussion around Trump as an election approaches. Also if we are going to use the 'Fascist' label, we want to make sure that it's not being misused in situations where it's not appropriate, robbing the word of its original meaning. I think the difficulty here is that Fascism isn't a coherent ideology (like say Marxism), but a messy patchwork of nationalistic far right ideas and practices that have some commonalities such as : - Extreme xenophobia and ethnocentrism - Militarism and corporatism - Heavy use of propaganda to set up an 'Us vs. Them' narrative that blames all the world's evils on some Other - A subjugation of the individual to the needs of the State - A cult of personality around a powerful leader - A disdain for electoral politics and liberal democracies While obviously many of these fit Trump, it also seems clear that he's opportunistically tapping in to some of these elements (which have existed below the surface of American society) for his own political advantage, without having any strong convictions or being fanatic in the same way that Hitler was. I honestly see Trump as closer to a Tony Soprano figure myself, who's willing cynically latch on to whatever belief structure or ideology benefits him personally. Or is all this just what fascism looks like now in our Modern world? Interested to hear some other thoughts and opinions on this.

I wouldn't go that far. I could see the beginnings of RBE in a Social Democracy that adopts a Universal Basic Income program which expands as automation increases and attitudes towards work change. Probably still some ways off, and of course what a RBE is will evolve and change over time just like every other economic system.

Thought it might be interesting to get a list going for what people happen to be reading, especially for others who tend to have a backlist of books that they'd like to add to For my part, I've been reading 'How to Change Your Mind' by Michael Pollen (author of the Omnivore's Dilemma). A fascinating look in to the history of psilocybin and LSD research, both for the treatment of mental illness and trauma, but also for the betterment of well people. Michael Pollen is a sophisticated and nuanced thinker, and offers an interesting perspective on ways to integrate the scientific worldview with that of mysticism people experience in altered states of consciousness.

Interesting point. You also would probably get in to questions of Content vs. Structure as well; how fully can you separate the content of a work from the constraints of its medium? Could also be that systems thinking doesn't lend itself to artistic expression as easily because of its inherent complexities. Food for thought.

Great points; and it's worthwhile to keep the Constrains placed on him in mind when considering the question. While I mostly agree with you, I would push back a bit to point out that while all Fascists are Authoritarians, not all Authoritarians are necessarily fascists. A brutal mob boss who has people killed is an Authoritarian, but not necessarily a Fascist. While Trump is undoubtedly an authoritarian, I don't know if he has a coherent enough set of beliefs for the Fascism label to be %100 accurate (too selfish to devote himself to anything, as you correctly pointed out). Which is why he strikes me more as an opportunist who just happened to latch on to proto-Fascism because it was in his self interest to do so. Which is why I'm not sure whether or not the fascist label is helpful or counter productive for framing the discussion around Trump.

About as subtle as an anvil falling from a skyscraper, but an effective analogy nonetheless. I was thinking about this recently... Are stage Yellow movies / tv shows (fictional, not documentaries) even a thing at this point of time? Seems really difficult to place my finger on what a stage Yellow piece of entertainment would look like. The handful of examples I can think of might be better placed in high Green with some aspects of Yellow.

Two highly interesting and very different takes on Resource Based Economies, coming at the idea from differing perspectives (a scientist/futurism approach, and a more political systems thinking approach).

I see alot more Trump signs and bumper stickers than I do Biden ones, just like I did in 2016. Really hope Biden has the 'Silent Majority' thing going here in Michigan, or we're fucked. Biden's up in the polls here, but after 2016, I'm doing my best not to over rely on them.

I would think that a realistic path towards a resource based economy would be as an outgrowth of Social Democracy once it begins adopting a generous Universal Basic Income program that's made possible through heavy use of automation. Considering that a majority of the world hasn't even made it to the stage of Social Democracy, Resource Based Economies seem a far way off.

Imagining what an honest bumper sticker for the Trump campaign might look like: TRUMP 2020 : 'He may be an incompetent businessman and a fraud, but he hates the same people I hate'.

I guess it becomes a question as to whether calling someone out when they're espousing a dogmatic belief will lead to a productive discussion on the matter, or whether the person in question is more likely to become defensive and end up derailing conversations in this forum. I've changed my mind on plenty of things, I guess it just depends on how the subject is broached; is the person responding in a somewhat respectful manner, or are they doing so in an accusatory way that's likely to trigger a defensive response? This is assuming of course that both parties are acting in good faith; otherwise that's what we have moderation for, isn't it?

Has anyone else received their absentee ballot yet? Still waiting on mine.

It's worth pointing out that the Stanford Prison Experiment has been largely discredited by the scientific community. The article I linked goes in to more detail, but there were deep methodological flaws with the study: both Zimbardo and the college students involved went in knowing the results they wanted (to make a case for prison reform), so they let that influence their behavior to get a desired result. The resulting wasn't organic as was claimed, but closer to being staged. This speaks to a larger methodological problem in the field of psychology, where they have trouble replicating the results of these famous studies. If you're interested, i'll drop a podcast link about a psychologist who talks at length about some of these problems. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/62832-stanford-prison-experiment-flawed.html And the podcast (the discussion about the problems with the field of psychology are in the second half of the episode) https://www.verybadwizards.com/115

@MannybWhy does it seem like there's always plenty of political advertisements for me to toss into the recycle bin when I'm collecting my mail, but fewer examples I can dredge up of that sort of those direct mail political advertisements when I do a Google search? But I digress... So these aren't the exact format of the political advertisements I receive in the mail every week for each candidate, but are as close as I could find after a handful of Google searches, and are broadly representative of the campaign tactics for each. Notice how the format of Biden's advertisement is primarily Informative; it's goal is to communicate tangible policy positions in a clear and concise way; also notice how there's no mention of Trump in that advertisement. This seems to be broadly consistent with what I've seen out of the Biden campaign, where his ads may mention Trump briefly, but Trump isn't really the focus. If I had to sum up the mood of his campaign, it's one of reassurance; he's trying to convince the Country that he's a reasonable and responsible person, and this is usually backed up by concrete policy information on things he hopes to achieve once in office. He is also trying to portray himself as a Moderate (which he is), with the hope that this will come as a breath of fresh air to the country after the extremism of Trump. The Trump advertisements by contrast are intentionally trying to be emotionally manipulative by preying upon people's fears and anxieties. While the direct political advertisements may occasionally mention policy, very little concrete information is provided on what Trump hopes to achieve during a second term. And for that matter, there's also comparatively little focus on his accomplishments during his Presidency. His main campaign tactics primarily consist of attacking his enemies ("The Radical Left" is the most common phrase I see in his adverts), and trying to scare people away from voting for Biden by claiming that he's a Radical Leftist (which is not true; Biden is a centrist in the American political system). His adverts tend to contain emotionally charged imagery and phrases chosen to tap in to people's grievances and anxieties, while also claims that are just factually not true, such as : Joe Biden supports abolishing the Police ( he does not), that voting by mail is fraudulent (little to no evidence for this), etc... Reason for this is over the course of four years Trump has had little in the way of accomplishments that he can boast about, so from a strategy standpoint this sort of negative campaigning where he demonizes his opponents and preys upon people's fears is really the only other avenue he has available to him. While there might be some blurring of these lines (I'm sure if you go looking for it, you'd be able to come up with a Counter example for these trends from the Biden/Trump campaigns), these are the overall trends I've noticed from both campaigns. And for what it's worth, I live in an area of the country (Michigan) that's a Swing State, and is going to be pivotal in this upcoming election, so it hotly contested by both campaigns, and a heavy target for political advertising. I should also note that negative campaigning isn't a strictly partisan issue, but it does seems to be much more heavily split along partisan lines for this election in particular. Sorry for not having more/better political advertisements to post here as examples; if I find something that's more illustrative of this, I'll update this post. Hope this helps in the mean time!