Outer

What the heck do you mean with white default? It's you who think white is the default color. Because you're projecting your Shadow everywhere. Most people don't give a shit about skin color. You want to really think they chose the white-brown color because of "white default sm" or because they just wanted a color to match as large of a customer base or because of some other reason? I just think people think Band-Aid have the color of Band-Aid, not white. You can probably prove it to yourself by looking at the color in other countries, even for other companies. The band-Aid color doesn't match my skin color, AT ALL, it "sticks out like a sore thumb" like that person who invented "Diversity in Healing" Band-Aids have said it does for other "skin colors".

@Emerald Have you considered the possibility that the reason why Band-Aid was a white-brown color was because that's was the majority skin color of their customers, or some other reason like the same reason why bandages or lab coats are the color white and not out of Racism? Technically, the Band-Aid color applies to Asians, Hispanics and even Black people. It doesn't match my skin color. It was interesting that you say it is to match white people. Since it doesn't match my skin color isn't that racism?

It has been off-topic for a couple of pages but it was some good discussion imo.

I'm asking again, are band-aids that are made to match white skin colors and a "nude" paint that matches white skin color examples of systematic racism? To me it's kind of trivial, but there have been transparent band-aids for many years and recently other colors that will match more skin colors. I don't think many people paint but if someone is and a company has a paint color called nude that's white I guess you can boycott that product or company.

So you think band-aids that are made to match white skin colors and a "nude" paint that matches white skin color is an example of systematic racism?

Give an example of systemic racism. I still don't share your definition of racism but I do agree with you if there is a bundle of individuals who are over and over racist or if there is a group in which there is more racism, that does warrant further study as to why that is. There are definitely racist organizations however. The definition of racism that I gave you, if an organization reflects that definition it is applicable to it.

Racism in a system is because of racism in individuals. A system is merely a conceptualization of a group of individuals, the effects are at individual interactions between for instance a customer and a client, a doctor or patient, or government employee and citizen. You will know that as you start thinking instead of speaking in platitudes. For instance how do know a hospital is racist? Or a restaurant? By the interactions of the doctor and patient and the customer and the restaurant. If the interactions are not racist, the restaurant and hospital isn't either. Because that is how you measure it. By definition, what I wrote is how Green sees it as it's from two green societies. If you went there and spoke about how there are different races to enlighten everyone on the street, what reactions do you expect?

Let's see if Emerald ignores this.

Actually in Green society, racism is defined to be systems of beliefs, concepts, worldviews or ideologies where the human species can be divided into races. I think that is accurate, as it is the foundational belief of racists in an Orange or lower society. I'm not saying it isn't above Orange. I'm just trying to state that by this definition many people in the U.S, who aren't racist by their definition, would be racist. You can look up racism on the norwegian or swedish wikipedia for instance and translate the first sentence or two.

@Emerald I don't deny the experiential reality of race for many people, what I am denying is that to hold on to that as if it was true is not only, in most cases, backwards for society, it is also scientifically questionable. If I'm talking with anyone I will tell them that yes you might group homo sapiens into races, but it is scientifically questionable, and it is in most cases not useful at all. If someone is being discriminated because of their race, by a racist, I will then tell them that that racist is founded upon and attached to the unscientifically classification of groups of people into races. I will also tell them that we're more like consciousness if we take the time to question who or what we think we are or who or what people have said we are, if the situation is ripe for that.

Not sure what that means.

I'm operating out of the logic that Emerald is wrong by her own logic. I've written into detail the problem here:

It is a hallucination, but since most people are delusional you can play into it but at the same time help them transcend it. By talking of the scientific evidence and what kind of society evolves from placing emphasis on "race" rather than individuals. Yes it is arbitrary and not based on evidence, basically just appearance. If someone is operating out of a belief that 'races' exist and these people are these races and IS racist, I won't go tell the person who is experiencing the racism that it's just a hallucination. I'm not that autistic. I'm just telling you that it's not a long-term belief or good story for homo sapiens and it seems as you understand that. Racism is after all founded upon a hallucination. Not sure about that. I'd not even call it race, I'd just call it skin color, for instance. People do have different appearances, even among groupings which people subjectively place people in. "Race" only matters when people discriminate against a subjective group created in the mind' of the racist, for instance. Describing appearance is useful in other context, though rare, but then it can be explained by for instance skin color.

A: "We met back with our trail guide. He's taking us to meet a very special master. I've been hoping to meet him for some time. People say he's on the final leg of the journey. Walking the last mile, to final Enlightenment." B: "No one's there, gate's locked" A: "It's a very intense stage of the practice, requiring his total energy and concentration, so he rarely accepts visitors." C: "You coming here shows our connection." "Without this natural connection..." "You'd have never come here." "People need this connection to meet." "If I didn't open my gate," "You'd have just waited there." "Wouldn't that have meant that we don't have this connection?" "We plant seeds in the past." "It's the reason we meet up today." "Do you want some tea?"

If the actual pendulum swung from individualistic to collectivism you wouldn't be more than just an ant in an ant hill or a cell in an organism, your vision to the collective wouldn't be more than the collective speaking of itself. You wouldn't have any responsibility as there's only the collective, just like a hundred people in a riot is just a riot and not a hundred individuals. Your body wouldn't be more than a slave, your characteristics wouldn't be more than what it meant to the collective. What you think of you wouldn't matter to you. That you are conscious doesn't matter at all. What matters is what you can build for the collective with your hands. Your decisions would be controlled by an intelligent machine deciding where you should work or who you should date. Like I knew, you are operating out of Red/Blue collective hallucination of for instance race. I've grown up in a Green society and we were taught that there is only one race and that is the human race. Yes you can choose whether you have the collective or individual lens depending on the situation, I do so as well, but if you have the collective lens without the individual lens nested in it or vice-versa, you are not Yellow in my opinion, but I don't know much about spiral dynamics. I have just seen a picture of a spiral and Yellow was Collective Individualism.

The collective lens is more of a hallucination than the individual lens, as its through the individual lens in which you have the collective. If you take on a collective lens I think it's the Individual collective lens which is the healthy one, as first it doesn't lead to totalitarian certainty and second it deconstructs collective hallucinations that put primacy on collective hallucinations like race. It's impossible to have another communist russia or nazi germany with mass collective individualism which is a mix of orange and green into yellow. The problem is the collective hallucinations which each stage shares with each other, a green is sharing the hallucination of race with a red, so they reinforce each other's delusions to keep one another game going. It is mutually beneficial to the Green and the Red. The Green telling a non-Red who isn't delusional their delusion, it spreads. If another person comes along and says race is a social construction, or mostly irrelevant for the average person, from a Big Picture science perspective, both will fight him. A person in the Green stage can't for instance make conspiracy theories about a supposed patriarchy of a certain race, like if they were lizard men, if their collective hallucination isn't entertained. I do not want to hear what you say what you perceive to be my race or my privilege is as it's your delusion, not mine. Nor do I want to write an essay of your delusion of me. Ineffability is who we are, not delusions. Your point about inter-racial relationship is an example of your mind being delusional thinking there is such a thing of different races, even though both stage Green and Orange (Science) rejects such a notion. The racial social construction is based on a few traits that are observable, actual genetics is more complicated and whether our social construction completely matches the genetic data is very questionable. An alien that comes to Earth wouldn't probably divide people into different groups based on for instance appearance like skin color. On your point regarding the levels of expansiveness regarding community or belonging, yes, that's correct and useful. This article writes about Xenophobia and Xenophilia and a couple possible biological mechanisms for Xenophilia like a gene at DRD4 (dopamine D4 receptor) https://mad.science.blog/2018/07/09/xenotypy/

Do you think stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism?

Can you give an example of Right Tribalism?

I'd be careful in saying statements like there's little tribalism in Green. You sound a bit like a conservative saying there's little tribalism in conservatism. But I don't know the statistics. Clearly the country is divided into polarized culture & tribal wars. The point I have is that there IS more tribalism in Green than you understand. In fact I think both you and Emerald have shown it yourselves. For instance by building arguments out of stage red/blue stories like gender, race etc. The Universities is exactly where this is happening on mass.

Depends how you explain it. Bernie Sanders communities is not the tribalism. Can you think of Left Tribalism? What is that?

Yes, that's Orange's limitations. The integration of Green and Orange group vs. individual dichotomy I think is Yellow. Not all who are interested in doing that. But many. In a society where University is tuition free, the spots are chosen based on competence, on SAT scores or equivalent. Some Green who have red/blue beliefs will want them to be chosen by imagined group affiliation, that will go on the exclusion of people who were competent but didn't fit the group affiliation which needed to reach its targets. Yes, systems and especially people have real reactions to those things you mentioned, among other things. That's called discrimination and even for Orange that's not a good idea as we, as a society, want the most competent. Orange might argue of business rights to chose who to hire, but that is unhealthy orange because it's contradictory to its own principles and preventing moving up the spiral. But you use socially constructed race and at the same time work beyond it. Clearly it is foolish to reject them even though they are mostly social constructions or stories (some things are though biological based, which is healthy Orange) because many people do not. I'm just thinking what I've thought before in what I think is Spiral Dynamics. Just thinking out loud. I'm not so careful right now in my writing so bear with me. But I do think I am on to something with Individual Collectivism being Yellow.

It's Orange reacting to stage red/blue in Green. Collectivism without Individuality is Right and Left Authoritarianism. What I think is that Red/Blue collectivism moves to Orange Individuality and then at Green if they are systematic thinkers they keep the Individuality to move to Yellow. I've seen a picture of SD where stage Yellow is Individual Collectivism. I don't think Green is a place to stay unless the Red/Blue collectivism is rejected. Community is one way to put Green, healthy collectivism. It doesn't group humans into races, gender identities, rich/poor and other groups for practical social justice. It merely lifts all up, the Greater Group of Homo Sapiens AND other Animals, that's where animal rights activism comes into place, influenced by compassion and awareness of spirituality, consciousness, sentience. Orange puts the focus on the Individual, you are not your race or your gender before you're an Individual and the scientific nature of it puts inclusion into, and climbing of hierarchies, by competence. To reject it is to ignore healthy and practical aspects of Orange. It seems wise to gain the practical aspects of Social Justice, but it is not worth it. Practical social justice is uplifting everyone.