Emerald

The conclusion he's making about people becoming gay by deciding to change their hormones, still doesn't make sense if that's the premise of his internal logic. He's saying you can change your hormones to become gay... but not in the taking HRT sense like trans people who are seeking gender affirming hormone replacements. That would be the way it would make sense based off of his internal logic in the way that you're mentioning if he's conflating sex and gender and seeing gay and trans as the same thing... and seeking hormone changes to change both. It's incorrect still. But that would at least make sense by his own internal logic. In his internal logic, he seems to be under the impression that there's a reset button on the human body/mind that you can deliberately press to change your hormones to become permanently gay. I keep asking about his rationale because I'm genuinely curious (and mildly amused) at pondering what his internal logic is. Is it just a decision in your mind and then "BAM!" your hormones change and you're gay? Is it a magic spell you cast? Is it a medicine that you take? Is it something else? I must know... so that I can get even gayer and rid myself of my pesky opposite sex attractions!

Sources please? I do take into account the idea of straight-identifying people having a secondary sexuality that can come through in a more pronounced way in certain environments... like in prison. In this sense, I think that most straight people have some small degree of bi-sexuality and the capacity to be attracted to someone of the same sex under specific conditions where there is touch starvation or deprivation of outlets to meet sexual/romantic needs without the preferred opposite sex outlet. But I don't buy AT ALL that someone would be prison-gay and 'never able to return back to being straight.' If someone is claiming that, the person was already gay from the get-go and using prison as an excuse. So, it's weird that you and the OP both have this belief, "Going from straight to gay is totally possible and sexuality is fluid and you have to work to preserve your straightness. BUT once you slip up and go gay, you can NEVER go back." It's almost like you guys think of straightness as a kind of purity. And you have to maintain that purity. The, once that purity is lost, you can never regain it again. It's a very strange way of thinking about human sexuality that showcases a distinct defensive stance against going/being gay.

From your perspective, how does it go against sense-making to use these rhetorical strategies? It's not like it's backed up by nonsense. The majority of people genuinely aren't asking for this crazy stuff. Plain and simple. Now, you could try to give the public the whole powerpoint presentation about how the viewpoints that come from Project 2025 are minoritarian views that represent the threat of autocracy stemming from a desire of 20% of the population to go back to pre-industrial era societal structures. And you should do that too. But meanwhile, 80% of people have already tuned out because it's a college-level lecture. And the average person's literacy is at an 8th grade level. And most people aren't interested in having the discussions you want to have. And that's not a bug... that's a feature. Instead, you can just put it plainly and simply in the way that a 3rd grader can understand.... "No one's asking of this crazy stuff!" And that's simple and true... and it makes sense to the the vast majority of people. And it reflects the will of the vast majority of people. It's just a less fancy and less intellectual way of saying, "Wannabe autocrats are using Trump's megalomania as pawn to try control your life by eroding democracy." If you always have to couch things in super philosophical political language, you have to recognize that it's leaving 80% of people out of the conversation because they're either unwilling or unable to engage on that level. But break it down and make it simple. Then it makes sense to the majority of people.

?

I don't even see it as particularly manipulative. It's wrapping a truth up in an offensive attack format that the average disengaged voter can digest quickly and easily. So, it's values-neutral and can be practiced in positive and negative ways. So, instead of being eggheads and using million dollar words and giving a powerpoint presentation that explains in depth all the problems that can arise if Project 2025 gets enacted, it's summing it up in a short punchy offensive package like "Mind your own damn business!" and "No one's asking for this crazy stuff!" and "We're not going back!" And this cuts through all the noise. And it's true because VERY FEW people in America actually agree with these extremist positions. And while like 20% of people are politically engaged and philosophical and intellectual and can have these types of philosophical discussions about politics, it's always been the case that like 80% of people don't view politics beyond the impressions and vibes. And short punchy offensive attacks are the way to win the vibes war. And that just is what it is.

Oh yeah! I remember now! That's how I did it.

You're a bit too detached from these dangers because you're not directly impacted by them. And you can afford to think about these things in more detached philosophical ways and worry about "Oh no! What if epistemic commons degrade!" because you haven't been on the chopping block... not yet anyway. It's different for me and my husband because we are impacted by them. And that makes us MORE objective about this topic and not less... not in spite of our conflicts of interest, but because of them. And I am glad that Democrats are winning the messaging war. And they aren't even needing to lie or play dirty to do it. They're just pointing out and crystallizing into words, indicting truths about how out of touch and strange the far right views espoused by Vance and that would be supported in policy by Trump via Project 2025 is in the eyes of most American people. So, it's fine to play angel's advocate (with the angel in question being Lucifer) when you're not directly impacted by these patterns. But this is just devilry in a philosophical guise.

I don't really look at it as, "You go low, we go low." It's more like... integrating the ability and willingness to take the offensive stance in order to serve the greater good. When you're appealing to reason and higher nature, you HAVE TO take a defensive stance because it takes a long time to explain those things. And it requires a lot of brain power that the average voter either doesn't have or doesn't value engaging with. And that is just how people are. And the desire to give a whole powerpoint presentation and explain and appeal to reason and truth comes across as waffling and weakness. But if you take the offensive stance and you're able to be short, punchy, and sharp with clear repeatable meme-able talking points that highlights the weakness and ridiculousness of the opposing team... this reads as strength and certainty. And you then put your "enemy" on the defensive where they have to explain themselves, which makes them look weak and bothered. So, the willingness to take the offensive stance isn't negative. It's understanding human nature and working with it to serve the greater good... as opposed to naively expecting the majority of human beings to be rational, educated, highly informed, and highly consciousness beings. The fact of the matter is that, politics is a boxing game when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the average person. And we need those that are serving the greater good to become adept at boxing... instead of nobly losing and being above it. Like, I don't want to lose any more of my reproductive rights or have my husband deported because some Far Right wannabe autocrat get into office and wants to turn me into a brood mare for the state and rip away the Green Cards of documented immigrants, because those on the "Noble" Left were too moral to be on the offense and fighting the good the fight. There tends to be a naive liberal fantasy of appeal to logic, reason, and ethics to best the enemy. And it's in every single movie ever made where the protagonist puts the antagonist in his place with some "mic drop" moment where he comes back with the most reasonable and ethical argument. But this doesn't work in real life. And the reason why is because in a political debate in hopes of getting votes "If you're explaining, you're losing." And that's because explaining means going on the defensive. But if you're on the offensive and you keep it short, punchy, and memorable to showcase the weakness of your opponent, that sticks in people's minds.

But how do people (in your view) consciously change the hormones in their body to become gay? You're not answering the question of the mechanism by which you believe that's possible. It's just magical thinking... then "Trust me bro. I'm correct." How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you don't even have any internal logic behind your claim.

That's where the difficulty is in discerning. Like, I know that there are people who enjoy experiencing being dominated. And with that enjoyment comes the stripping away of both power and responsibility and surrendering both of those things to the other person. And it creates a euphoric powerlessness and smallness in the best form. So, desiring to be made powerless is relatable... and doesn't always come from shame. And because money is a tool of power, I can see how someone might enjoy playing through a scene where someone steals that power away from them in the form of money. So, I can understand why someone would value that from a non-shame-based perspective. That said, the reason why I lean towards it being more exploitative is because the person who's giving up the money may not actually have enough to cover their bills... and it may cause long-term issues for them. And the other person engaging in that with them probably doesn't have their best interests at heart. There's also a strong possibility that the person is engaging in that because they don't feel worthy of sexual attention unless they're giving money or something else. Or that they're using the experience only to trigger shame and to reinforce shame narratives. So... the distinguishing factors I would make is "How in control of this fetish is the person?" "Are they using money that they can afford to lose?" "Does the dominator/dominatrix have their genuine interests at heart and set clear ethical boundaries... or are they just exploiting the person?" "Is it a means for the person to wallow in self-punishment and self-hatred? Or do they enjoy it in similar ways like someone might enjoy being tied up?" This is why I lean towards it being exploitative because there are so many safeguards that would have to be met that I don't necessarily think is there. That said, in the BDSM community more generally... there is a very strong focus towards boundaries between subs and doms to keep the subs safe. That's why there are contracts and all sorts of other things done to set clear boundaries. So, if it's approached the same way with financial domination, then I'd see it in the same light as any other BDSM dynamic. But I don't know if financial domination is even widely accepted as valid in the BDSM community.

That's what I was thinking.

I don't think it's a crime, but I do think it's exploitative. That is, unless the guy is wealthy enough and he's not emptying his bank account... and he is in a healthy enough place to have firm boundaries regarding his fetish. Like if a guy has an extra $1k to burn on this fetish and he indulges it once or twice a year... and he's able to otherwise pay bills. And it's just something he does for a thrill here and there in a way that doesn't involve psychological distress... then that's fine. But I'm imagining with this particular fetish that that doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can only imagine a guy wanting this dynamic because of deeper feelings of shame and that he's seeking a trigger for the shame. The issue is that I get the sense that this type of fetish can come from deeper-seated psychological distress as opposed to just a way someone gets their kicks.

You keep saying this. But you haven't answered anyone's questions on how you think this is possible? Does the wannabe-gay person jump on one leg and pat their head to permanently alter their hormones to turn themselves gay? Do they cast a spell on themselves? Do they just choose in their mind to be gay? What's the mechanism you assume wannabe-gay people use to choose to change their hormones?

It's not that the statement "not all men" is false. Women already know that it isn't all men. And with "me too", the reply of "not all men" was employed as a thought-stopping retort to derail and shut down the conversation because it made some men uncomfortable... but more importantly threatened powerful people like Harvey Weinstein. And the answer back of "Yes all women" was created to show that... even if not all men consciously engage in negative behavior towards women on the caliber of a Harvey Weinstein, all women are still affected by these patterns and most of us have had sexual crime encounters in some degree or another. And "yes all women" is largely reflective of a critique of the culture that shapes the way that people treat women. But when people (men and women both) are unconscious and "un-woke" that they will perpetuate these patterns that hurt women either deliberately or unconsciously. So, given these negative currents... there's a lot of hurt that women experience, often at the hands of men. And when women open up to share our experiences and try to make our voices heard and to raise awareness, it's a vulnerable thing to do because we're laying our traumas bare to make the world aware of them. This is ESPECIALLY true for women coming together to bring the sexual crimes of a powerful man to light. And it is a direct challenge to so many power structures just to do so. So, people get super offended and triggered by it... and there's a lot of blow-back and victim-blaming. Then, in private conversation, when the knee-jerk reaction is "not all men" and it derails the conversation to being about the man being offended by the conversation as opposed to being about the societal patterns that are creating traumas. It basically goes from a really open and vulnerable heart to heart discussion... to one that would just devolve into a fruitless pointless argument. And at that point, you realize that the man you're trying to communicate to isn't mature enough to hold space for your lived experiences and has to make the conversation about himself and how upset he is about what he assumes the woman thinks about him. So as a woman, to preserve your own vulnerability and energy, you save the conversation for men and women who are more mature and less easily offended by your vulnerabilities and traumas.

In the context of your non-evidence-based theories regarding same sex attraction, how do you suppose one actively decides to change the hormones in their body to 'choose' to be attracted to the same sex? What do you assume the mechanism to be behind changing the hormones? How do you assume that I changed the hormones in my body to be attracted to both men and women? What actions do you believe that I took to develop that attraction? Though I know you're incorrect, I'm asking in earnest because I genuinely want to understand your assumptions about how human sexuality works to come to this conclusion. Also, since this isn't a viewpoint shared by most people who don't like gay people, I'll be straightforward with you about what this makes me think of. Though I'm aware that this may be interpreted as a "gay person trying to turn you gay". But this anti-LGBT rationale and the intensity of the fixation/paranoia about LGBT people forcing you to "participate", genuinely makes me suspicious that you might be a closeted gay person who's ashamed and in denial of being gay. It's somewhat common that, when someone is gay but is raised in context where being gay is taboo, the gay person might feel more comfortable thinking of same sex attraction as a conscious choice that they (and others) can decide upon at will. And this person can often see the LGBT community as tempters trying to get them to stray from the path, as it is easier to scapegoat LGBT people and blame them for the gay feelings. So, as long as they keep fighting the good fight of 'choosing to be straight', and don't choose to give into the same sex attractions... that they're straight and therefore 'normal' and acceptable in the eyes of their friends, family, and community. Another common rationale with repressed gay people is the thought process that same-sex attraction is something that everyone struggles with. And that, if it's normalized or accepted, there would be nothing stopping themselves or anyone else from giving into the same sex urges. But of course, the reality is that most people are straight and don't have same sex attractions. It's not something that most people "struggle" with. Like 10-20% of people have some degree of same sex attraction and the other 80-90% of people don't. And it's just comforting for the gay person in denial to think of same-sex attraction as a normal and ubiquitous 'sin' that everyone struggle with but must fight off. This is what your behavior on this post makes me think.

Boo! That's no fun. Start another debate thread about me. Anyway, back to Trump and the election... I guess.

Yes, it isn't like dishonesty suddenly becomes honesty when someone shifts from blue to orange... or from green to yellow. That lies are happening is true on all levels of the spiral.

What do you mean? Me and several others were having a conversation about Elon Musk and Donald Trump biases and dishonesty... and he got onto us about it. All of my replies came after that.

Teach me your ways, oh exasperated wise one. As your humble student, I apologize for my recalcitrance.

That's my issue with it too. I'd be fine if he were actually taking specific swings at what I'm saying, as I like to be challenged and to spar it out. It's just unearned when there's nothing there but vague grandstanding and claims that his view is higher consciousness and that I'm the closed minded lower consciousness one. There's nothing there to learn or work with.

Like overlooking basic truths and realities because of having your paradigm wrapped up too much in the intellectual model of Spiral Dynamics. For example, if you point out objective instances of things like racism, for example. And the person who is wrapped up in the Spiral Dynamics model sees that only as stage green delusion and blots that reality out of their awareness because it doesn't fit with their understanding of the model. Or if a Stage Blue person points out the importance of traditions as a method of group cohesion. And the Spiral Dynamics model bypasser views that only as Stage Blue delusion because of their understanding of the model. It's basically where the model overtakes your ability to see things for what they are.

Definitely true.

He's the same as I remember him. If he's supposedly trying to help me, he needs to be specific and be more intellectually honest in his tactics... without grandstanding and throwing out all sorts of judgments and assumptions about me and my paradigm. But it's pretty condescending in the first place for him to assume he needs to teach me how to be 'higher consciousness like him' because I rightly pointed out instances of Elon Musk's dishonesty on a thread comparing and contrasting Musk with Trump. He's basically saying, "Get on my level... ya' dum dum." And he's counting that as a mic drop moment.