Scholar

I agree that they don't think they will lose, what I mean by the understanding is that there is an intuitive grasp that progress eventually will undermine their world view and what is common to them, which is true. It threatens their identity, which is why they react against it so harshly. This is what a lot of progressives don't understand about bigotry and conservatism in general, it is rooted in identity. There is actually an easy way to avoid the backlash by celebrating those aspects of past worldviews that are positive. For example, with a Christian, you can focus on elevating good aspects of Christianity, like ideas around love and compassion, forgiveness, understanding sin in the context of a failure, not evil. Things like honesty and truthfulness. Maybe some of the traditions you can celebrate and even integrate it into your progressive culture. But this is not possibly at lower stages like orange and green because their identities tend to evolve through a rejection of past elements, which often can be an unhealthy progression. A typical example is a teenager who resist the oppressive norms of stage blue by being reactionary and specifically negating those values. Being rude, being uncivilized, being anarchical, maybe even being a satanist in the extreme. Stage green has been engaging in this type of thing a lot, rejecting white culture, institutions like the police and so forth as a way to create an identity that rejects the flaws in those things. The problem with that approach is that you lose contact to those things, which will make it impossible to allow those things to progress themselves. If you reject the police, it will grow more and more corrupt. You have to love the police to be able to improve it, you have to see the potential in it. In a similar manner, even if it is difficult, one has to identify the potential in the lower stages and amplify those. When speak to Christians, appeal to the modern ideal of Christ, the ideals of compassion, humility, loving thy neighbour and so forth. Things that such individuals can relate to and that are positive. The ideal way of societal progress is to maintain an identity that collectively evolves. A lot of friction occurs because of the split in identity that occurs as people abandon the common culture and attempt to create a counter-culture. Although the counter-cultures can integrate into the main culture, as long as there is not too much friction. But given the time of social media, in which hostility is amplified to the maximal degree, that the only thing that is amplified are the differences in identities to cause as much engagement as possible through cultural war, this basically becomes impossible. And this is not a trivial thing, this is actually an existential problem that we have to solve. It's a more pressing issue than Climate change, and really any other issue, because every other issue becomes impossible to solve as long as this problem is present. You can see this everywhere now, that stages identify themselves through the rejection and opposition of the other stages. As soon as this happens, evolution through the evolving of individuals becomes significantly hampered. Previously, stage orange perceived stage green as cringe and airy fairy, but because of the radical the rejection of stage orange by green, it grew into viewing stage green as a genuine threat "they want to take my freedom away". When the conservatives look at rock-n-roll and realize "Oh they just want to have fun and be free", they might reluctantly tolerate it. But if they start thinking "Oh, rock-n-roll wants to destroy Christianity!", that's when things start locking up.

The reality is that all of this is literally fueled by conservitards who cannot let go of the past. They do not want to watch their depraved, outdated, unnatural, unsophisticated and self-serving world views die. But their world views are doomed to die, because of how corrupt and depraved they are. But to hang on a little longer, they are willing to make a deal with the devil. You can see this with people like Ben Shapiro, who know that Trump is utterly corrupt and a threat to american democracy. But after realizing he will run again for president, his tune changed. Suddenly he would not speak ill of Trump, because if Trump loses, it means the progressive win, which means his conservitard world view is one step closer to extinction. You have to understand that people like him are perfectly willing to risk seeing the world burn in hopes that they can maintain their cherishes view of the world. This is what identity fundamentally entails. This is why progress must come slowly, almost invisibly. When the conservatives notice their certain doom, they resist, and they often resist to such a degree that the only solution becomes war. So, for most of history progress comes in such small steps that the conservatives don't even know that their worldviews are fading away. But now they do know, they are self-aware enough to realize that every step of progress, no matter how mundane, will eventually spell their doom. They understand this, so that's why they will resist everything that is progressive, in an utterly mindless fashion. Remember, the conservatives of today are the progressives of the yesterday, and the progressives of today are the conservatives of tomorrow. Conservatives do not stand up for the "values of the past", they stand up for the values they grew up with, which are values that progressives had fought for. You don't see a lot of conservaties engaging only in missionary sex because it is the most conducive to procreation. You don't hear them condemn rock-n-roll. You hear them plapper about what is unfamiliar to them, what they personally have not grown to understand as the common world. This is why conservatism is fundamentally self-serving and egotistical. It is all about maintaining your personal timecapsule of the world as you have come to understand and love it during your childhood.

But nobody is saying he doesn't self-delude himself into thinking this isnt a self-serving power grab. Like Hitler, he probably has amazing justifications for everything he does. Yes, we get the point, every human thinks what they do is justified. How the fuck does that relate to ANYTHING any of us said? What is the point of bringing this obvious fact about human psychology up each time someone points out Elon's corruption and desire to entrench more of his power and consolidate as much wealth in his own hands? This isn't some sort of writing class on having empathy for the bad guys so you can write more compelling villains for your tragicomedy, this is real life, where we describe the relevant, politically functional dynamics. We don't need your 101 psychology class, jesus christ.

Spiral Dynamics does not work in the age of social media. The dynamics have completely changed through the invention of that technology. Someone will have to build a new model on new data-sets that will be relevant to the 21st century and beyond. While some things might still hold true, the evolutionary pathways are completely altered simply because of the new ways identities get to express themselves in this environment.

That's not an argument lmao. You can't look at Hitler before his rise and go like "Boy who cried wofl". Yes, there is a balance to be struck here. Why do I have to explain this to you as if you were sub 90 IQ. Look at what is going on, it's absolute insanity, already the damage is monumental, and you are still going "Trump derangement syndrome" like some sort of cucked NPC who hasn't been given enough lines of dialogue to be gifted with even a semblance of intelligence and agency. For the love of God, look at what is happening in your country. You criminalized abortion, your president is spreading literal russian propaganda and completely fabricated information. Elon Musk, the richest man alive, has complete control over the most meaningful information technology in your country, and is blatantly using it to spread his own agenda and propagandize the entire world, and is now in charge of the very institutions (and dismantling them as we speak) which are supposed to put a check on his oligarchal power. Donald Trump is literally doing everything he possibly can to dismantle your democracy and all checks on power you have. You can't just treat politics like a wrestling match. This is real life, people are actually dying, right now, because of all the things Donald Trump has done.

It seems that my explanation was not clear enough. To boil it down to idiocracy level logic: If I am wrong, worst thing that happens is I worried too much. If you are wrong, you lose your democracy, you might enter civil war, and China, Iran and Russia will exploit the fall of the US to basically go for a world war type power grab.

The scale of the damage to democracy that has already been done is monumental. You can't simply brush off the seriousness of what is happening. This isn't some sort of bet on the outcome of a football match. if you are wrong about your evaluation of what is occuring, and what potentially can occur, this is going to end in ways that might be irreversable for decades. You have no idea what will be the case in 4 years, because Elon Musk, the richest man ever to walk this planet, is fully invested in propagandizing the nation with the most influention information technology in the history of mankind. If you cannot see how fucking insane what is going on is, you are part of the problem. The problem is, you will not value peace and democracy until you lose it. It's unthinkable to you that you would have to fight a war for survival in the next year, or in 3 years. But that's exactly what the Ukrainians thought. Reality can change very quickly, there is nothing that maintains stability other than human beings and their values. If you do not stand up for them, and if you do not act in the fact of ridicilous red flags, then it is literally only a matter of time before things collapse. Even if it was the case that Trump was not an existential threat at this point, the fact that he can get away with this means that any actor who will be willing to destroy democracy will know that there is nothing that will stop him, because everyone will simply assume that democracy cannot fall, that the balance of power is eternal, that the system is fool-proof. This is exceptionally naive. Americans are deeply ignorant, underdeveloped and childish. That fact alone should give you existential dread, the fact that so many people in your country are so profoundly ignorant. With ignorance on that scale, it is only a matter of time before catastrophy ensues.

He stated in his last appearance on Joe Rogan that climate change is basically not a thing. Sure, 4 years ago I had the perception as well that Elon Musk was an ideologue, and maybe he was, or still is to some degree, but to continue lending him credence and charitability after the way he is acting is simply not rational, it makes no sense. The guy is a Göbbels in the making, his only purpose is to serve himself.

Ah yes, the people who get their news from twitter-propagandists.

But you are being too charitable, nothing he is doing is good for society, and his behavior does not indicate this in any way. He has been acting in bad faith for a very long time, he is just branding himself as the savior of mankind to be better able to consolidate power. You have to realize that the move Elon did, by buying twitter and using it as a literal propaganda tool (he made it literally easier for bots to operate and removed labels on state-funded entities, which allows authoritiarian countries to freely propagandize the world), is comparable to the wave of propaganda in the early 20th century, which also was fueled by technology, that lead to the rise of fascism and communism. He is doing exactly the same, and you probably underestimate how bad this can get within one or two generations. What is currently going on in the US isn't merely comical, it is existential. And it must be treated this way. Hitler was more genuine in his aspiration to do good for his people than Elon Musk is.

Lacking nuance? If you still think Elon Musk is anything but attempting to create an techno-oligarchy which will put him at the top of the world's power hierarchy, you really need to pay more attention, lol. The guy isn't doing this to actually fix any problems, he is 100% self-serving in this. It's not lacking nuance, it's actual, blatant corruption.

I want to get a basic overview of what the community thinks about consensual incest. Specifically what I mean here is consensual incest between two adults or between two similarly aged minors. (referred to as consanguinamory) I want you to consider questions such as: Do you think consanguinamory can happen? Meaning, do you believe consent between family members can even occur? If not, why not? Do you think consanguinamory is immoral? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory is disgusting? If so, why do you think you feel that way? Do you think consanguinamory is inherently dysfunctional or unhealthy? If so, why? Do you think, in regards to any of these questions, that it is not always the case, but most often the case? If so, what lead you to believe that? What do you think of individuals who participate in consanguinamory? Do you view them as dysfunctional, perverted or lacking options? Do you feel anger or hatred towards them? Do you pity them? Could you imagine that two individuals might engage in consanguinamory for the same reasons any normal person might, like wanting to spend their life with someone the person they love? If not, why not? Do you think most cases of consanguinamory will always be unhealthy, dysfunctional and so forth? If so, why? How prevalent do you think consanguinamory is? How prevalent do you think sexual interactions between consenting family members are? How often do you think those come with significant harm, even if they are of consensual nature? Explain why you evaluate it the way you do. Do you think inbreeding between close relatives has a high chance of birth defects? If so, how high would you estimate such risks to be? Do you believe this risk to be inherent to inbreeding? Do you think consanguinamory should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be be discouraged? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? How do you look at harm prevention in general? Do you seek to approach it through law, stigmatization or education?

Just think about how absurd it is the the richest man alive has such low ego/development that he would fake being good at a game. And think about how he views the average citizen to think that he could get away with it. And this guy is the top oligarch of the United States. We truly are entering idiocracy, how is any of this even real. Trump itself is an absurdly surreal phenomena, but it's just getting worse and worse. The lack of integrity and anti-intellectualism in american culture is truly disgusting. You americans are like a plague on the world, and the sad reality is that you are the only real option we have, given that the alternative is authoritarian dictatorships like China. I pray to God that the Indians rise in power and establish themselves as a world dominance with a culture that is more sophisticated than whatever surface level, vain and childish culture the US has come up with over the past few decades. The sad thing is that you guys are dragging us all down with you, by being the cultural center of the western world.

I'm at my wits end. I just can't stabilize my thyroid, it keeps acting up. Taking iodine will cause insane irritation and inflammation in the thyroid. I feel better for a while and then symptoms get worse and worse. But I also just feel terrible without iodine. I tried all the things to try. Selenium supplementation, which for a while I thought had helped, and dozens of other things, but it keeps being unstable. It's beyond frustrating, even something as simple as the weather changing from summer into colder weather just is putting me completely out of balance, with severe symptoms of depression and all the other ailments that come with Hashimotos. I tried things like probiotics too, and various supplements, as well as dietary adjustments. This is by far the worse problem in my life.

Then what you say meaningless. Every single human right has been achieved by extremism, according to this standard. Every single moral step forward in the history of mankind was extreme, relative to what was normative.

The problem is that, ethics being a matter of persective undermines your entire point. Of course to the racist, the abolitionist will be annoying and "psychologicall unwell", and radical and unhealthy. But why would the abolitionist care about this? He thinks slavery is immoral, so of course he will be willing to kill you. What you are missing is that moral relativism the way you employ does nothing but serve the status quo. You basically demand of individuals to maintain the status quo, to not get on your nerves, because morality is relative and therefore everyone should be left to do what they please. But this only works because you are not the one who is victimized. It's a profoundly ignorant state of consciousness you reside in. You are utterly blind to your own evil. In the end you just find it extreme because it doesn't fit your self-serving value system. Malcom X was also extreme, and what you are doing by appealling to some utilitarian Philosopher, is basically appealling to Malcom X to dismiss the abolitionist (or equal rights) movement, because he is radical and extreme. You can disagree with the vegans, but in the end the light of consciousness will win over the darkness. Your archaic worldview will perish, and everyone will see how blatantly biggotted and selfish you were. And I don't even mean this in a profoundly condemnatory way, it simply is what it is. It's like people who argued abolishing slavery will come with all the former slaves dying of starvation and disease because they will no longer have employment. This exactly transpired, but that does not change the fact that the racist slave-owners simply appealled to that fact, not because they cared about slaves, but because they would appeal to anything that would make the other side seem unreasonable. Veganism is like human rights and the abolition of slavery. But you are missing a far deeper point, in that the moral relativism you subscribe to give every radical vegan a perfect validation of their actions. They could engage in terrorism and be perfectly morally justified, because morality is simply a matter of perspective.

Because veganism is not a diet, it's an ethical stance. Diet is simply one part of remaining consistent in regards to human rights and basic ethical foundations that we as a society subscribe to. What you say is as profoundly ignorant as maintaining a stance that because ethics is subjective, therefore whether or not you want to be racist is a matter of opinion and anyone who tries to speak against human rights violations is a radical because these stage orange oafs need to accept that not everyone is going to agree on what basic human rights even are. The truth is, you are not developed enough ethically speaking to even be capable of understanding the vegan position. Moral consideration for me but not for thee.

Sure, shaming is not the best tactic, but every shaming vegan is better than a non-shaming non-vegan. Both in regards to their development as humans, as well as their basic moral character.

The best argument for guns is that it gives individuals who are physically disadvantaged a power equalizer. In the end, if you ban guns, you take away from vulnerable individuals the only means they might have to defend themselves from physically dominating individuals. An example might be a woman who has a crazy ex boyfriend who stalks her. In that case, not only can the gun provide a feeling of basic security, but it might also be used in the case violence is escalated.

Yes, there are a few limitation to Mirror Life, in that they would have difficulty competing in an environment in which most molecules or protein structures would have to be reorganized to fit their handedness. The concept itself is interesting however, given advancements in evolutionary technologies such as machine learning, we might reach a critical point at which technology itself might become far more accessible than it currently is. The scary thing about this is that it is no longer engineering that leads to technological advancement, but evolution itself. Evolution is capable of generating complexity, rather than mere complicatedness, such as engineering is reducable to. Complexity arrived through evolution can solve for problems beyond the feasibility of linear thinking. Solutions might not be comprehendible, given that the complexity itself is the solution/function, in an irreducible way.

This is a very interesting idea. It basically boils down to all life on earth being biased towards a certain asymmetrical molecular structure given that life began biased towards one asymmetry over another. Life does not ever counter the counter-symmetry to this structure, because all life is based on DNA which is carries in it that structural bias. If you create a precisely mirrored version of DNA and a life form, like a bacteria (on a molecular level), it would be impossible for any organism on this planet to detect and counter-measure against that type of life. No immune system could even detect, let alone fight such biological forms. The reason why this is such an essential idea is that it demonstrated an asymmetry of power as a result of unconscious evolutionary processed. Meaning, because of how exceptionally unlikely it is for a life form to just emerge from the ground up (from the creation of a new form of DNA that would happen to be a mirror version of ours), life basically never encountered these threats at all, during the entire history of evolution. This means there are absolutely no adaptations to such threats. Which means that given such a threat is introduced, it would virtually an infinite power glitch in regards to evolution in relation to it's competitors. It's basically a blatant security vulnerability that is present in virtually all life on earth. The reason why it is an symmetry of power is because, it might be far easier to create such mirror life than to find defenses against it. It might become fairly trivial to create such life forms in the near future, especially given advancements in AI, but it might not be even remotely as trivial to find ways of counteracting the negative effects of being exposed to such life. This is basically an inevitability of technological evolution. The inevitablity is that, as civilization grows more powerful, each mistake it will make will also become more devastating. With nuclear weapons this is clear, but in relation to what awaits is in the future, such weaponry might be viewed as trivial. As technology evolves, each individual actor within civilization will also be given more power and therefore more responsibility. At some point this power might become so great that even a single individual within civilization could cause a world ending event, simply because it might not be possible to contain something like the distribution of AI systems which could make it easy for individuals to create technologies that are life ending. There is no reason for why life couldn't just be wiped out and be forced to start from scratch. Life is iterative, so it will just begin anew, and maybe the next intelligent life form will go down a pathway that does not lead to extinction. Maybe that takes a million planets that all develop intelligent life, and out of 1 of all of them, intelligent life gets to persist. If you think this is outragous, then you simply have to consider what the process of evolution is in the first place. The vast majority of species that existed went extinct. Evolution in that way does not care about wastefulness, or your particular feelings about the world. To evolution, the entire universe, or multiverse, is it's playground.

There are very few human beings self-reflective enough to recognize themselves in the perpetrators of their victimization. The reality is that Israeli's do not feel secure, and the history is too complex to be able to boil it down to a simple moralistic tale of oppressor and oppressed. Such narratives have achieved nothing in all the decades of conflict. There needs to be greater care when you condemn such individuals. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. When we speak of ethics, it should be recognized that the entire moral conversation in society is profoundly self-centered and biased. The fact that virtually no attention is paid, by you, or anyone else here, on the fact that we torture, rape and slaughter billions of individuals every year, in every nation on this planet, for far more trivial reasons than national security, should tell you everything you need to know about human decency. Notice that ss soon as your mind might get an inkling of the fact that you are no different from the Israeli, in your degree of self-serving evil, ignorance and selfishness, you will seek to distinguish yourself from them. You will seek to find an excuse for why in fact, the Israeli is less evolved than you, that he is more childlike, self-absorbed and blind than you are. You should realize that in that moment, you commit the same sin Netanyahu commits when he oppresses the Palestinian people. Not only are you selfish and evil, you are just as blind as he is to this reality. The only solution to this can be deep compassion, for those you consider most evil and depraved. When you ask "Why does Israel act so indecently?", you should ask yourself, why do you act so indecently? Why do you turn a blind eye to what is happening? Why do you not speak up about it? Why do you contribute to it? Everything that there is to understand about the evil of the Nazi, the evil of the Israeli, the evil of the Palestinians, will be provided if you ask yourself these questions enough. Truly realize, why it is impossible to expect from you, Leo Gura, basic human decency.

This is precisely true. That which is repressed must be denied in oneself. And by denying it, one gives that part of oneself power to influence on from the shadows. It's a profoundly simple psychological reality, yet it's impact is utterly neglected by contemporary society. The more you condemn others for immorality, the more incapable you will be of recognizing your own immorality, because the cost of recognition become higher. The one who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Recognizing our imperfections is the first step to freeing ourselves from it's control. This is why the contemporary cultural manifestation of stage green can be so toxic, because of how profoundly blind to it's own evil it can be when it acts from a position of judgment and peer influence. The greatest insight should be that oneself is deeply flawed. The reason why you have to feel true compassion even towards your enemy, towards those you consider evil, is because it will be the first step to understanding them and their imperfection. And if you understand their imperfection, and recognize it as such, you will be able to recognize it in yourself in equal, sometimes even greater, measure.

This will not work fundamentally, because like you describe yourself the incentives do not align. None of these individuals had a positive impact, because the system from which they operate does not appeal to reasonable and developed individuals, and it actively decivilizes individuals. You are in this way as naive as you accuse the individuals in the video of being. If you are going to play this game (making it acceptable to engage in), it is not you, the reasonable and developed individuals, who are going to be able to exploit this dynamic to "win the game", but rather it will be the most common denominator of unconscious and primitive behavior. What is and isn't on the line is completely unknowable. You think the world is on the line, but in the end none of what you say is actually provably a problem. That a few species die here and there? Who cares? Planetary boundaries? So what, we can adapt. AI superintelligence? There is literally no evidence that this will be a thing in the next century. Yet you seem to not even mention actual systemic issues that make it virtually impossible to resolve all the problems mentioned above, namely the epistemic breakdown that has lead to the very delusional views that you hold as well. You don't notice that problem because it does not sound as fancy, but it is far more relevant because it renders solutions to all of the problems above virtually meaningless, given they cannot be intregrated into reality.

I don't think there are relevant alternatives to paypal given that most alternatives are not integrated into the respective sites that require such payment methods.