Emerald

Exactly. And that's one of the many reasons why Bernie will knock him out of the water. Bernie is actually way more likable and charismatic than Trump is. And that's because Bernie has a big personality... but he's not annoying or duplicitous-seeming. Honestly, Trump couldn't even win the popular vote against Hilary, whose personality and demeanor is like Dolores Umbridge meets nails on chalkboards. Bernie is a strong figure. He's not budging and he's not playing. He will fight the good fight and do so with integrity. Everything about his demeanor and non-verbal communication screams this.

I'm sure he's scared. He can't use his usual thing and be successful against someone like Bernie, who's so above it. He's like this cantankerous old codger that doesn't give a crap what Trump says about him. I mean, honestly, he's supported these platforms for 40 years. Do you know how controversial and against the grain that was 40 years ago? Also, he's used to people throwing all kinds of dishonesty and fear tactics at him. He's desensitized to it by now for sure.

Sanders would totally burn Trump to the ground in a debate... TKO-style in terms of both charisma and policy substance. I'd love to see it. Trump's usual tactics only work because of the spinelessness and corruption of the other person. And the fact that they try to beat him at his own game. And only Trump can be best at his own game. And Bernie is neither spineless nor corrupt. And Bernie doesn't play games. The choice will be clear once Bernie starts grilling Trump on his fake populism and broken promises, and hitting him with some real populism. That's what the people care about anyway. Only the fan-boys care about Trump being a character (which doesn't mean he's charismatic). Also, Trump's new campaign slogan "Keep America Great" is a sure fail. The only reason he got the support he did was because he promised to make it better. He fundamentally hasn't, and the people that voted for him in hopes he would help realize that. And if he's saying, "Keep America Great" the people from the still-poor Rust-belt will go after him with the pitchforks and tools from the abandoned factories Trump lied and said he'd save, while continuing to outsource jobs and give huge tax-cuts to the mega-wealthy.

I am principled on the stance that he should be impeached, as no one is above the law. But I do fundamentally see the Democratic establishment as corrupt and a result of the excesses of Orange. So, because they are fundamentally supporting the status quo, I see them as conservative by the very definition of it. They are trying to maintain what is. And I do think that the impeachment proceedings will help Trump and not hurt him.

The problem is that this will probably die before it gets anywhere. And they probably know that. It will honestly likely help Trump in 2020. Bill Clinton got a bump in popularity after he was facing impeachment proceedings. So, in my eyes, they're just trying to deflect from Biden and nothing more. Truthfully, I think they're pretty okay with Trump being in office because he's a sure bet for green-lighting literally everything that benefits them financially. And Trump's antics give them a veneer of respectability in contrast. They just have to pretend to not be okay with Trump in office because they have to appeal to their voter base.

I would say that Trump is the garden variety corrupt politician. But he is more dangerous in many regards, including demagoguery, persecuting vulnerable groups, and heading his cabinet with tons of billionaires and people who have direct conflicts of interest with their post. Sort of like entrusting the sheep farm to a wolf. Also so much lying beyond what's normal for even politicians. That said, I'm not willing to underestimate the severity of what establishment politicians do. They too support oppressive governments and vote to stage offensive regime change wars. They support dictators and give weapons deals to countries known for human rights abuses. They leverage the law to do the bidding of the billionaires that bleed the middle class dry and push many into poverty. They support Big Pharma and the health insurance industry, maintaining the corruption in the system so that 30k to 40k Americans dies per year due to under-insurance. So, I agree that Trump has a more dangerous effect on the populace and waters the worst seeds in use. But he and the other establishment politicians have equally piss-poor and corrupt foreign policy. But Trump is definitely worse domestically due to the cult of personality he has. I doubt it's about holding Trump accountable. They really don't care about that. It's all about smoke and mirrors and protecting Biden's corruption, through shifting the focus to Trump and his impeachment. I don't expect anything genuine coming from establishment Democrats because they're fundamentally not principled and just interested in their own financial interests. And if Biden tanks any further, it's a huge threat to their pocketbooks because he's their candidate. And he isn't looking to rock any boats. Next in line are Sanders and Warren. They'll definitely tip over some cash cows if elected. So, they're just trying to keep Biden from sinking further and losing his lead which is now marginal.

The reason why is because they want to throw the heat off of Biden, who is the front-running Democratic establishment candidate. The establishment Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, are trying to throw people off of Biden's scent because the progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are polling within only a few percentage points of him. And they stand to lose a lot of money if either of them get elected... especially if Bernie Sanders gets elected. Their numbers keep going up as they campaign and Biden's numbers keep going down as he gaffes more and more dirt comes out about him being handsy with minors, supporting segregation back in the 60s, shitting on millennials, showing signs of confusion/cognitive decline on the campaign trail and during speeches, and a whole bunch more. The establishment Dems know that Biden is in a fragile place because he has been steadily bleeding away his initial lead which was very strong. Before, he was a solid 20 points ahead of Bernie and Elizabeth. Now, he's like 1 or 2 points ahead, as their popularity grows and his diminishes. This is also why Biden's chosen to do a limited campaign. The more he's in front of people, the more he tanks. So, his solution is to ride of name recognition and association with Barack Obama, who is seen in a nostalgic light for many on center-left... despite his corruption and milktoast Centrism. So, when Trump did this, it spells a very bad look for Biden. His son has basically been employed and paid copious amounts of money by the fossil fuel industry to do nothing, based off of pure nepotism and the industry heads in the Ukraine purchasing favor with Joe Biden. So, of course the Democratic establishment chooses this instance to impeach Trump. They don't care if it really happens or not. The point is simply to create chaos so that no one sees the corruption. They're hoping to ride off of the Trump hate that so many on the left feel to obscure Biden's corruption and have us focus on Trump's impeachment... which isn't going to happen in the first place. If they really wanted Trump impeached, they could have done it already. Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the constitution by having Saudi Arabian government officials stay at his Trump hotels and overpay. This is basically a money-laudering scheme where the Saudi government is funneling money to him to buy favor. To which, Trump has already vetoed a bill that passed both the house and senate to rescind support from the Saudi Arabian military as they continue to enact genocide in Yemen. And that money that he funnels through his businesses is likely the reason why that bill was vetoed. And it's normally not allowed. Jimmy Carter, back in the 70s when he was president, was required to sell a peanut farm that he owned for this very same reason. The rationale given, was that there could be foreign government officials, just buying up a bunch of "peanuts" to funnel money to him to buy favor. So, he had to divest that business. But Trump found a loophole in that he just gave his business over to his kids. And he pretends to have divested from it. But truly, if the Democrats really wanted him impeached (which they don't because he benefits them financially too), they would go after him on violation of the emoluments clause. So, this is all shadow puppetry and nothing else. Trump isn't going anywhere, unless they happen to find something stronger against him while investigating. Yet again, the Democrats were very specific that they're narrowing their scope only to this one issue. So, if that tells you something, it says "We're not really looking to impeach."

Asking is still illegal. Saying "All he did was ask." is the same thing as saying "All he did was the illegal thing." But I agree the dirt on Biden should be dug up. That said, it is illegal for the president to do research into their political opponents with the help of a foreign government. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Indeed you're correct that many people who voted for Trump did so because the Democrats (party of the people) weren't actually doing the bidding of the people... but instead doing the bidding of their corporate donors in the same way as the right. And of course, the media (left and right) is bought off by the same corporations and lobbyists. So, when Trump came in as an outsider candidate and saying he would "drain the swamp" and "Make America Great Again" and "Bring back coal" and all this other stuff... people believed him. And people believed him because they wanted so badly to believe him. And they wanted to so badly that many of them were able to look over his problems... and many liked him because of his problems. But the fact of the matter is that Trump has not and will not deliver on those promises. It's fake populism. He's just saying what people like, in hopes to get their support. And it worked in 2016 because Hilary Clinton is corrupt and promised only the status quo. So, he lost the popular vote but won the electoral college through appealing to the rust belt's needs through his talking points. Also, there are NO PROGRESSIVES in the establishment. So, the left-wing media is just as focused toward maintaining the status quo as the right-wing media. The only difference is that the right wing media is reactionary and wants to bring things backward. So, we don't have conservatives and progressives in establishment government and media we have reactionaries (right-wingers) and conservatives (Neo-Liberal Democrats). And the thing both of these groups have in common is that they're out for their own interests that they derive from corporations. And they will screw over the people and frequently do to line their pockets. So, given that we have a 98% conservative government that's only 2% progressive, don't you think it's about time we give some time to the progressives. Like you said it can't just be one way, and so far it has been one way in favor of conservatism. Also, despite his words, Trump isn't doing anything to fundamentally change that. And if you think he is, go ahead and make your claim...

You're getting a little emotional here, and you're projecting things I didn't say. What I'm saying is that what Trump did was illegal and impeachable to the letter of the law. And he's not above the law. That's all. It's the same reason why it would still be illegal for a person to be a vigilante, and go enact punishment on someone else for their wrong-doing. You would still be arrested for that, even if the person got what was coming to them. Also, he could find that information out some other way that's legal and it would be non-impeachable. And I would be fine with it. And truly, I honestly don't care where he got the information, nor do I think most people would. I'm glad the dirt on Biden is coming to the surface. But the law is the law... and he Trump is not above it. It's important that the Bidens be called out on their corruption though. Also, I'm pretty sure that you're right that Biden has zero chance of beating Trump. He's a corrupt corporatist neo-liberal shill that runs his campaigns on platitudes and is incredibly gaffe-prone and handsy with minors. His cognitive ability is also slipping, and he has a checkered past with racism. And once his voter-base catches wise to these things, they will rescind their support from him quickly. Mostly he's skating off of the name recognition of being Obama's VP, and the average person (who's not politically informed) falsely associating him with progress. And of course, Trump will go hard at him using his normal mud-slinging tactics. And if Biden, as he seems to be, is running on being the clean candidate in relation to Trump, then Trump will be able to exploit this weakness easily... as Biden is anything but clean. This is why we need an honest candidate with a great record and solid policy proposals like Bernie Sanders running against Trump. Trump will attempt his mudslinging and calling him "Crazy Bernie" or whatever. And Bernie will just keep bringing it back to policy substance and calling Trump out on his fake populism. But all the same, that doesn't mean Biden is not Trump's opponent. He is. And it is illegal for the president to enlist the help of foreign governments to dig up dirt on political opponents. And there is no other way to interpret what he did.

Well, yes. It is illegal for the president to try to dig up dirt on their political opponent with the aid of a foreign government. So, in black and white terms, yes... it is an impeachable offense. There's no real wiggle room there, especially since he admitted to it. But also, I think that most average people will focus, not toward Trump soliciting information from foreign governments, but instead toward the very real corruption the Bidens were involved in. It's kind of like if a person was illegally stalking another person. And then they found out through stalking that the other person had a bunch of bodies in their basement. Sure. It's illegal to stalk people, and that doesn't change just because the person found something incriminating about the other person. But the stalking wouldn't even be the primary focus of the average voter hearing the story. It would be the bodies in the basement. So, the DNC has really screwed themselves on this. And it will honestly probably help Trump in the 2020 election, unfortunately. But even so, it's an impeachable offense. And that's very clear cut. It violates the law. And because of the rule of law, Trump should have to face with impeachment proceedings. No one is above the law. That said, the impeachment will probably either die in the house. Or if not the house, the senate for sure.

I recommend setting your boundaries and have him choose her instead. It will make the decision easier for him. He will no longer have to choose between the two of you. And best of all, you will be rid of a lukewarm and duplicitous partner and able to find one who loves you in particular.

You're welcome. I'm glad it was helpful.

That does seem like it would be the reason to have that strong of an aversion. What I recommend is trying to process through those traumas. To understand this, you have to understand how trauma works. Basically, the trauma response that our mind/body does in response to an excessively stressful situation or event is to shut down the processing of those high intensity emotions through repression. So, our body and mind work together to create a resistance and blind-spot to things that trigger up that trauma. That's what repression is. It's a protection mechanism. But it's only meant to be a temporary repression, until you're in a safe enough environment to go back and process those high intensity emotions. So, your mind and body work together to give you thoughts in the mind and feelings in the body that keep you from facing the emotions put there during the original trauma. In this situation, it seems your mind has created judgments against gay people and your body as created feelings of aversion and disgust that come up when you think of male homosexuality. This makes perfect sense because it's your mind/body's way of keeping you from facing those traumatic emotions AND it keeps you avoiding gay people too. Now, most gay people wouldn't do that. But since you probably only know that guy who exhibited gay tendencies, he is your mind's only familiar association with gayness. So, to you, he is the only familiar symbol for "gay" and he is also the symbol for your trauma. So, your mind cuts out the middle man and equivocates gayness with trauma. Now, this trauma response of shutting down, is a coping mechanism to keep us being able to live and survive after experiencing traumatic situations. But this response, though allowing us to be more resilient, is also quite problematic for us. It creates blindspots in consciousness and there can be a lot of repressed emotions. That's why it's important to process through the trauma eventually. Now, the problem is that our mind/body has created protection mechanisms that keep us resistant to facing those traumatic emotions... and even unaware. So, the mind/body will trick you into getting derailed and not facing your emotions in that way. This is where body-work practices come in. You can do body-scan meditation to bring more awareness to repressed feelings that are hiding in the body. You can also do various forms of yoga (tantra, kundalini, kriya, hatha, etc.). You can also do Tai Chi or Qi Gong. Or you can do the practices associated with exorcism. Or you can get reiki done. All of these practices are designed to do the same thing. And that's to process through the blockages in the body created by the mind/body's trauma response. You can also get to know more gay people and make friends. That way, the man who caused your trauma isn't the only person you associate with gayness. That will help you face with aversions as you make friends with gay people, which helps with the processing. It will also help take the sting out of gayness as a symbol, allowing you to face those emotions with less distress. Imagine that the concept of gayness is like the doorhandle that you need to turn to open the door on your repressed trauma. Right now, that door handle of gayness as a symbol is heated up so hot, that you can't even touch it without pulling your hand away. This stands in the way of being able to face what's behind the door. But if you get to know more gay people, it cools down gayness as a symbol and that door handle becomes easier to grasp and turn. As you become more comfortable with gay people, you can open the door much more easily because the initial sting of the symbol of gayness goes away.

Actually, deep connection for a woman takes time to develop. She needs days and weeks to really have the connection set because a lot of it happens when she is not around the guy. Longing is necessary to create tension, heat, and pressure. It's like when you cook goulash or something similar. Sure, you can eat it right away and it's okay. But to get a really good goulash, it needs to set for a while for all the subtle flavors to come out. Otherwise, you get a flash in the pan of passion but no real tension, connection, or deep bonding. And things will likely fall apart before you get to the really intimate aspects of the relationship because the fire that the relationship is forged in wasn't allowed to get hot enough to actually meld two lovers together before it inevitably cools down into something less exciting but more addictive and loving. Also, you can't suss out compatibility in 90 minutes. That takes quite a bit longer. So, you can set up a structure to scaffold a relationship upon in 90 minutes. But like the first and second little piggy, the wolf will eventually blow it down. A strong foundation takes a while to build... and women's instincts are build specifically to look for strong foundations.

Yes, I see attraction and gender both as being a spectrum. But really, both are more of a reflection of the masculine/feminine spectrum and are behaviors that are influenced by the Yin/Yang signature that we're imbued with. So, sexuality and gender are really just a couple of expressions of that overarching signature. I suppose the way I would see being attracted to trans-women, it would depend on how much/little you personally perceived them as women without trying to. You could be attracted to a trans-woman, and if your natural perception is that she's a woman, then it's no different than being attracted to a cis-gender woman. I still see that as fundamentally straight on the spectrum, because to you, she is a woman. But if you are attracted to a trans-woman because you can see that she has male features and fundamentally see her as a man who looks like a woman and that combination of the masculine and feminine is the thing that turns you on, then I'd probably place that somewhere in the bi-sexual region on the attraction spectrum.

The negative reaction probably comes from it being a strong social taboo where you are. So, you've developed a resistance to it to protect yourself from social scorn or being conflated with a gay person. Or you could be seen as being in cahoots with gay people... which people would also likely frown upon. If you've witnessed that people, who are not heterosexual, on the receiving end of harsh judgment all your life, you will adopt these harsh judgments inwardly and outwardly to avoid being on the chopping block yourself. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you're gay. It also doesn't necessarily mean you're not. The fact of the matter is that you're in a blindspot, as the stakes are too high for you to do genuine inquiry into your own sexuality. Because, 'What if you see something that can't be unseen? What if you aren't totally straight?' It will naturally make you ask the questions, "Will my family still love me? Will my friends still be my friends?" These are very high social stakes to be facing. Not to mention if it's against the law or you would be subjected to wider social scorn. So, you're bound to have a lot of shame and shadows relative to sexuality. And it's of great benefit to you to be able to look at these parts of yourself squarely, regardless of consequence. It will really help you integrate and grow. Also, you're probably okay with watching lesbian porn because you're attracted to women. Also, seeing lesbian porn doesn't make you have to face with any gray areas in your own sexual preference like gay porn would... which again, would mean social ostracism and lots of pain and rejection. Also, to give my personal story, I am bi-sexual myself. And it took me a while as my society developed to see it as normal. When I was a kid, being gay/bi was still socially unacceptable to most people. So, I grew up with homophobic beliefs based on what I was taught and what my society accepted as normal. It wasn't until I was in middle school that I came to be friends with quite a few people who were gay, lesbian, and bi. And from there, I recognized that it was pretty common and normal. It was like 10% of society at least, and I'm from quite a conservative area. So, the real gay people in my life replaced the imaginary gay caricatures in my head. That said, because I am more attracted to men than women, it took me until I was like 20 to come to terms with my sexuality and admit to myself that I am bi-sexual. I was still fearing social judgment and scorn about it until then. Also, to answer your inquiry about there being many gender delineations, I want you to picture gender as a scale. And the different gender names that people come up with are spots along that spectrum, that allow people that occupy less common spots along that spectrum to come together as a group to understand information about their gender and sexuality, which helps them know and accept themselves better.

As I said before, he promised to help the Native American community in Grassy Narrows, deal with the problem of Mercury poisoning while he was campaigning. But he hasn't done anything of the sort. And when a Native Canadian confronted him about it at a high dollar fundraiser and talked about people's children being poisoned and not having anything to drink, he sarcastically deflected and made a joke and thanked her for her donation which brought jeers and laughter in the rest of the room. Now, I get that he was being called out, but that derision and laughter was his first response to someone's genuine struggle with basic necessities being corrupted/poisoned, is telling that he doesn't have that much empathy toward the struggle of Native Canadians. Also, he's very big on cultural appropriation. Like, every time he visits a different country, he wears a very costume-y depiction of that culture. It's actually quite comical to see how campy he makes it. Now, you may think that's not a big deal, but it does enforce stereotypes about minority groups in the eyes of more socially powerful majority groups. And that trickles into some really gnarly types of ignorance. And it also denotes a kind of vibe like he sees people from other cultures as an exotic novelty to be emulated. So, it's similar to blackface in many ways. Here is a video about the Grassy Narrows thing...

It's not about ruining his career. It's actually quite rare that a politicians career is ruined by public shaming or outrage... and that's true even when the transgression is extreme enough to deserve losing a career over. That said, they do have to contend with shaming and the collective potential for outrage pointed at them. So, it acts as a pressuring force... not just for the public figure but for everyone watching him/her as an example. Few people can stomach the idea of public scorn. That's why it's such a useful deterrent to the masses engaging in unconscious/ignorant behavior that they otherwise would have had no issue engaging in. So, it's not about making Justin Trudeau lose his job. It's about not just shrugging off blackface and the other problematic aspects of him as unimportant or undeserving of focus or criticism. And just treating them as business as usual instead of actually holding him accountable for his actions. And the way to hold him accountable is to hold him accountable in the eyes of the public. If he finds himself in the corner of collective scorn for a few weeks or months with a dunce cap on in the eyes of the world, he'll have to be very reticent about how he treats racial issues going forward. And that's the point. The wisest thing that we can do is understand that collective dynamics and shaming is a great way to take powerful figures to task for regressive behaviors. And it sends a message to everyone about what will and won't be tolerated, making it more socially uneasy and difficult to express racism (or anything else that causes problems). And I just think it's very unwise to just treat it as normal and no big deal and to reduce it down to the surface level action of smudging brown paint on lighter colored skin. Because the reality is that it's so much more than that.

Climate change is certainly the number one issue that effects everyone. But racism is a serious issue as well. And failing to hold Trudeau's feet to the fire and being an apologist for him, sends a message to all of society that his actions are okay and not a big deal. When in reality, these types of actions do harm people. You only see it as overkill because you're not grasping the effect these types of behaviors have on marginalized groups. Also, as I already said, it's not just an isolated instance of someone wearing black-face. It's reflected in his governance and attitude. But even if it were an isolated incident, it would still be worth calling out. And especially with your platform, you should consider that your attitude toward this issue has more weight than the average person. If you shrug your shoulders and dismiss this as irrelevant or "par for the course", you are sending a message to all who follow you to do the same. So, it's not just as simple as smudging some make-up on their face. These mocking behaviors are actually very harmful and perpetuate all kinds of stereotypes. And if we give it a pass (especially from a world leader) and open the door for this type of behavior, other more serious forms of racism and willful forms of racism will take more of a foothold in society.

Like I said, you must understand is that it's not just a past mistake, and it's not truly minor in the way you fathom it to be. This behavior trickles into his current policy decisions and actually harms people in ways that you might not likely appreciate due to not being on the receiving end of the problems. The fact stands that Justin Trudeau is the most powerful person in Canada. So, when you don't hold him accountable for his racist actions (even if it was just an isolated incident with no reflection in his policy... which it wasn't and isn't) it sends a message. And that message is that these types of things are just "par for the course" and acceptable. And it communicates that it's just normal. And it also communicates, that since we're not holding someone with the degree of power Trudeau has accountable for his racism, that we're not going to hold ANYONE accountable. And then, the willful racists get the message that they will probably get a free pass too. And when we don't hold people accountable and we just treat destructive behavior as normal and as not a big deal, we're unwise in doing so because we lose an important opportunity to join the collective in setting standards for behavior and saying "We will not accept this from you or anyone." This is the value in collective shaming and outrage culture. It sends a very clear message of what the populace deems acceptable versus unacceptable. And it has power. Also, given that you're a popular public figure, posting your Trudeau apologism on a high traffic public forum, you have tremendous influence on how seriously these issues are taken. So, when you shrug your shoulders at this problem, it influences others to shrug their shoulders as well. And I see that as a very careless use of your platform and your power. So, given the degree of power Trudeau has (and the fact that it wasn't just an isolated incident and that his present policy decisions and attitude reflect callousness toward marginalized groups), I think it's a disservice to just give him a pass and spare him collective scorn. His actions have definitely warranted more metaphorical tarring and feathering than you're willing to see as just.

Actually, I'm well aware of the point that Leo is making. And at earlier stages in my contemplation process on how society functions, I would have settled there. His perspective is not wrong persay. It's just limited in that it fails to recognize the function of and inextricable nature of collective human dynamics and outrage/shame culture. His perspective ignores that truth. But I'm pretty sure he actually agrees with me, because he commented affirmatively on another post about the value of Greta Thundberg 'Green-shaming' climate change deniers and do-nothing politicians and recognized this shaming as a good tactic for moving society forward. Here is the quote... "Good stuff. She's filling the important role of shaming folks out of their complacency. Shaming is an important tactic when it comes to raising social consciousness. It worked for the civil rights movement. The evil of the default position needs to be spelled out for people because we are like fish in water." But perhaps he doesn't want to encourage this behavior towards someone like Trudeau who is Liberal but exhibits racist behavior because he doesn't see shaming as valuable in this situation. He has more sympathy toward Trudeau, I think. So, he doesn't want him tossed to the dogs but he's okay with climate change deniers being tossed to the dogs. But I would imagine, generally, that people of color might have a different perspective than him because this issue directly affects them. They would probably recognize the same value in 'Green-shaming' Justin Trudeau and his ignorance in the same ways Leo sees the value in 'Green-shaming' climate change deniers and their ignorance. The fact of the matter is that once you become more aware of and accepting of uncomfortable truths about the machinations of humanity as a natural and impersonal force, you will understand better how society works. And you will be able to respond intelligently to the situation at hand. So, while it may be problematic, it simply is what it is. You can't get rid of mob rule and collective outrage. It's built right into us. You can only point it consciously and directionally at those that are doing actions that negatively impact people. So, understand that what I'm saying is that outrage mobs and collective rage is as natural and impersonal as a hurricane or an Earthquake. It does as much good in disapproving of collective outrage as it does disapproving of the weather. The best thing you can do is prepare for the weather, take proper precautions, and sometimes benefit by setting out rain barrels. And setting out rain barrels is what I'm advocating, nothing more or less. Also, you can learn a lot about collective cycles that way. And if you're under the impression that outrage mobs are just going to go away. They're not. And at this juncture in history, it wouldn't even be good if they did. They keep people on their toes, and force people to face with uncomfortable questions and truths. They're simply part of the way human beings create and solidify taboos. They've always been part of human society and always will be. If your gripe is with human nature, you will be fighting a losing battle. Make peace with the uglier aspects of human nature, and you will be able to understand how things work. And like Leo implied in his other post about Greta Thunberg's speech, you will see the very Yellow value that exists in 'Green-shaming' those who are resisting change and refusing to wake up. Edit: @Leo Gura Do you recognize how our perspective is the same about needing to accept outrage culture and collective shaming as a potentially useful aspect of society? And that we just disagree on who it should/shouldn't be pointed at?

This is exactly what I meant in my post earlier about outrage mobs playing an important role in human society. They have their place. They enforce taboos, so that people don't commit those same behaviors. Why was it different when I supported shaming Trudeau for his ignorance and callousness toward marginalized communities?

Obviously, it's better to open dialogue up. It's more helpful to help people transcend their ignorance. Get the ones that you can get... but it won't be everyone. In fact, it won't be most people. Transcending ignorance is a steep task that takes a lot of deep digging. That's where the outrage mob comes in to solidify social taboos against those who can't or won't transcend their ignorance. Social taboo has its place in this way... even if it's less optimal than the fantasy of having an entire society transcend their ignorance all at once. What must be understood is that outrage mobs are just part of human nature. And regardless of how problematic they can be, they're not going anywhere. Shame will always be a tool that the collective leverages in some direction or another. So, since there is not way to get rid of shaming and outrage from the human collective, the best we can do is encourage it to take on forms that actually benefit society. We can either choose to have an outrage mob that's anti-gay or an outrage mob that's anti-homophobe. But we can't choose to have no outrage mob. There is no intonation of human society that has existed without it. All I'm saying is to accept that and see it as a neutral phenomena that can be of great benefit or harm to humanity depending on which behaviors are on the chopping block. So, the first tool in humanity's belt is to help raise consciousness. The second is mass pressure. Both work incredibly well, though the latter has its problems.

Donald Trump, if nothing else, is quite good at influencing the mass mob and consciously leveraging social scorn away from himself and toward anyone who opposes him. And he has had a major effect in redrawing social taboos that enable more free expression of racist, sexist, and xenophobic behavior. So, he's using the very tool that I'm talking about... But he's using it for things that are harmful to human society. What must be grasped is that humanity is always at war with itself in deciding what is and isn't acceptable. It's always changing. So, if you deem the power to leverage social taboos and social scorn in the favor as inherently wrong/bad... then only the wrong/bad get to use that tool. And the tool is quite neutral as a phenomena. It can be used either way. Let's not poo poo it when it's used to solidify social taboos that help marginalized groups.