Emerald

Obviously I'm not saying that. Please stop straw-manning my argument. I'm saying that this having happened is a net win, not because "Yay! We can all fuck with the market now!" But because, now that average people have discovered en masse that they can fuck with the market, that there will be changes in the way things are handled. And this is because the existing power structures are the way they are to protect the financial interests of the owner class. And now, that the owner class's financial interests are being threatened and the devil is being hoisted on his own petard... Either... a. The levers of market manipulation will be closed to both royal and peasant alike OR b. Wall Street will pay off politicians to green-light legislation that cracks down on peasants but not on elites. And because this is a huge story, the average people will see this and become more aware of the class warfare being waged upon them by elites. And this will likely lead to more class solidarity.

It's an issue with the system. If there are levers to pull to manipulate it, people will try to pull them. Hedge fund managers have been doing so for a long time. Now, day-traders did the same thing. But the significant thing is that the response was totally different. It's business as usual when hedge funds do it... but economic terrorism when day-traders do it. And the average person sees that that is unfair... and that's HUGE. This tells you everything you need to know about the system and how those with money and power rig it in their favor to accrue even more money and consolidate even more power. It also shows you who truly owns the government and mainstream media, when you see the systems in place bending over backwards to protect the interests of Wall Street. So, we have the systems issue that we can work on. And we have the issue of class warfare... which disproportionately effects the average person. But sure. We also have to address the reason why there are people who want to hoard so much more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime... who are willing to mess over so many people to do so. These people are not demons. They are regular people who happen to be motivated by greed, just like any person can be... and greed is motivated by deeper emotional issues and the epistemological issues around self-worth.

I'm not saying that day-traders are going to fix the Capitalist problem. And I'm pretty sure you know that that's not my stance, given our conversation a day or two ago. What I am saying is that there is immense value in this having happened as it lays bare the pre-existing corruption in the market for all to see. And this is HUGE in regard to the development of Green in a more widespread sense. It wakes people up a bit more because it gives the average person a peek behind the curtain of the corruption in the stock market... and the fallacious myth that there is truly a meritocratic "free market". And it also shows the average person that there is strength in numbers when it comes to fighting against said Orange corruption. And perhaps, now that average people have been shown en masse that they can play the same game as hedge funds, that these outlets of market fuckery will be closed to both royal and peasant alike. OR the government will step in and do something really anti-peasant and authoritarian which would also show the average person that the system stacked against them... thus waking the general populace up even more to deeper levels of class consciousness and the awareness of the class warfare already being waged at them constantly. Also, even though this is much more destructive... the MAGA thing is helpful in the big picture too, as it shows people more about how propaganda works and how human beings respond to it. And it also gives our system a stress test. I know I've woken up a lot politically in response to this whole Trump situation... and I know I'm not the only one. It has politicized an otherwise politically unaware facet of society... the sleeping Green. I think it will prove to be integral in the process of human evolution. And now, we will be much more aware and prepared the next time the threat of Fascist take-over rears its ugly head. I know I was blindsided in 2016... as were many others. Now, it won't be such a surprise to those who oppose it. So, I stand by what I said... If you're really operating from a Tier 2 position, then you would recognize how positive this turn of events is towards the development of human society along the spectrum laid out in the Spiral Dynamics model... NOT because "Yay! We get to manipulate the market too!" but because it's been illuminating to the games already being played with the market and how it is stacked in the favor of elites. That's why this situation is a net win for society at large... and I celebrate it as such.

But he was saying that his teachings are for a tiny slice of the population. That's why I was taking him to task for it.

Then you should make your teachings private so you can screen your audience for those who are conscious enough. If your teachings are only for a small slice of the population, why are they out on YouTube for everyone to see? If your teachings are for a tiny slice of the population, why allow 1 million plus subscribers to access them? But if you were truly operating from a space of consciousness with regard to Spiral Dynamics, you would recognize that you can't just skip Green... and that each rung of the ladder is contingent upon the stage before it. And you should see signs of Green as very promising and as a harbinger of human evolution... even if it is an expression of our evolutionary growing pains. In fact, we NEED to develop Green as a foundation for Yellow and Turquoise teachings. You can't skip a Spiral Dynamics stage. Skipping stages just means that we won't have the internal or external infrastructure for the ability to develop the stages thereafter. So, if you're really in favor of a Tier 2 society... then you would see the immense value in moving deeper into Stage Green. And part of that is the development of class consciousness and the ability to recognize that we, as average people, have been on the receiving end of class warfare... and that we can fight back through organizing against the powers that be. And this is the deeper value of this situation. If you were truly operating from a Tier 2 space with regard to this issue, you'd recognize that each stage on the spiral is integral for human evolution and the gradual unfolding of human potential. And if you think that will be a smooth process, then I suggest you take a peek at a history book at how we've gotten to the stage on the Spiral that we're currently at. The level of development that we currently have is the result of many ups and downs of human evolution: the good, the bad, and the ugly. And to think it will happen any differently is frankly naive.

But you can't just skip from Green to Yellow. That's not the way societal evolution works. The system is playing out exactly the way it needs to to evolve. Don't try to rush it. There will be no skipping of Green. So, let the wisdom of Green do its work.

You just have no vision for why this is so impactful, and how this can lead to big positive changes in weeding out the corruption and manipulation inherent in the way that things currently are. And you've said absolutely nothing about the corruption that this has laid bare for all to see. It's things like this Gamestop situation that make average people more conscious of the corruption in the system... which includes these hedge fund managers that contribute nothing of substance to society, but make money by tanking businesses and destroying jobs. Now, because of these "scummy" day-traders, regular people are seeing that the system is rigged and has always been rigged in favor of Wall Street. And we can watch and see how quickly the rules are changed for them. With the Robinhood App halting trading, they're doing the equivalent of flipping the chess board once the elites start to lose. And so many people are seeing this and recognizing that average people have real power when they organize. And that's huge! So, don't go into some classist anti-peasant nonsense where you get selectively outraged at the peasantry doing things that the owner class has been doing the whole time. If you give it a shoulder-shrug when hedge fund managers are doing it, I expect the same response when average people start doing it. Otherwise, it's just selective outrage and a reflection of your personal biases. Recognize this for the force of change that it is, and don't get upset when a group of people that are subject to constant class warfare actually fight back and actually play the game that's been rigged against them and win. Can't you see that this has thrown a bit of a monkey-wrench in the corruption machine?

Being racist is what happens when someone projects their own Shadow onto a whole group of people that they consider "other." It is what happens people are unconscious... they project onto large groups of people as a result of that unconsciousness. But it isn't an inherent aspect of human nature. So, don't go excusing unconscious behavior because you think it's just the way that human beings are... because you're conveniently leaving out the fact that human beings are capable of being more conscious and forming deep bonds with people of any race or nationality. Basically, don't excuse your own unconsciousness and pass it off as "nature."

Oh just stop it with your gaslighting of @Preety_India. You know that calling someone "brown mouth" is degrading. It's racist. Period. Stop antagonizing.

I don't think so. I think they recognize the possibility of average people banding together and using the mega-wealthy's own medicine against them. And cracking down on Reddit simply won't address this issue at a deep enough level to secure the interests of the owner class. It's like cutting off one of the heads of a Hydra. Crack down on Reddit and a thousand other anonymous communities like it will pop up JUST for the purpose of playing this game. And now that this is a well-known phenomena TONS of people will be interested in doing it. So, there will absolutely need to be legislation passed if the goal is to protect the money and power of the owner class... which it is. This will happen fast.

What I'm saying is that this will lead to SOME kind of legislation. They're not going to leave this lever of manipulation open to the public, now that this has happened. So, I do expect big legislative changes... and fast. The question is big good changes... or big bad changes.

Yes. Now hopefully there will ACTUALLY be regulation on market exploitation where the mega-wealthy manipulate the market to benefit themselves... which is the status quo. But it just goes to show you that the wealthy and powerful on Wall Street can exploit the market all they want and put businesses under and destroy jobs to make money, free of consequence. But then, when regular people organize themselves and play the SAME EXACT game but in a way that obstructs the financial interests of the owner class, suddenly all bets are off and we have to shut it down right away. They even shut down the market for this. And then bail all these market manipulating hedge funds out. It's these times where we will really see the true colors and class inconsistencies of those in the government. I just hope that people don't buy the propaganda that what the Redditors did was some kind of unique evil. I hope realize that the Redditors are just playing by the rules in the same exact game that Wall Street has been playing. The main difference is that this actually saved a company and saved jobs. Maybe now, this lever of unfair market manipulation will have to be closed.... or (more likely) perhaps they'll just change the market rules to where you have to have at least $5k to begin investing or some other thing to siphon out middle income investors. Or perhaps they'll put more gateways to investing in stock that can only be bypassed if you have a certain amount of money. I don't know what they'll do. But you know that they'll do something... probably something shady.

This is the bro-bias that @aurum was talking about. Men who fight do ruin parties that way too by making others feel unsafe. As a woman, I can tell you from firsthand experience that it's genuinely scary to be in a place where men are fighting. But it doesn't perhaps bother you because of the way that they're ruining the party... as you as a guy can relate to it better. This is where the bias comes in. But women complaining and being wet blankets gets under your skin because of the meaning you make of their brand of negativity. So, even if they are objectively causing less chaos than guys who get into fights at parties, it feels more chaotic to you because it is a feminine form of negativity.

I'm not saying that there would be no differences in the way the invasion of Iraq would have happened. Bush was certainly a war hawk. But I'm 99.9% sure there would have been one. I don't see why you think Gore or Clinton would be all that much different. Democrats certainly do their fair share of regime change warfare and still supply arms to dictators and apartheid states. How do you honestly think Gore would have responded in the aftermath of 9/11? Also, "firing some missiles is the norm" specifically in this country's corrupt imperialist foreign policy. It shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Offensive warfare shouldn't be accepted as normal.

Both Clinton and Obama continued the offensive warfare in their terms as president. So, I don't see why you think Gore would have been much different. In fact, Clinton had already done a missile strikes on Iraq. So, I'm sure Gore would have invaded Iraq. He probably would have handled it slightly differently... especially in the way he spoke about it to the American people though. Now, he probably wouldn't have done the Guantanamo waterboarding things, as that seemed unique to Bush's sensibilities. But I'm sure an Iraq invasion would have happened regardless of political leadership as there was financial interest in doing so... lots of oil there. Plus, the owners of the military industrial complex benefit from forever wars because middle class Americans will feel more okay with giving so much of their tax money to the bloated military budget if you can convince them that it's for "defense". So, 9/11 was essentially exploited to drum up fear in the American people so that they support more war... and to justify invading Iraq because the average American didn't understand then that a group of terrorist hijackers from Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with Iraq. And of course, that wasn't the end to how 9/11 was used to justify offensive warfare in the Middle East. And of course, because 9/11 was such a godsend to those that have financial interests in warfare, they probably would have made sure their bases were covered by "donating to" whoever happened to be president. So, I'm sure that they wouldn't have turned down what was a golden opportunity from their point of view.

Well said!

Totally agree

That's true that the Covid botching is blood on the hands of Republicans. Republicans are quite a bit worse domestically, for sure. As I said, that's why I personally was relieved when Biden got the presidency. But if we look past their domestic impact and look toward foreign policy, we can see that those in the most vulnerable positions are suffering the same amount with both Democrats and Republicans at the helm. We as Americans, can only see Democrats and Republicans as drastically different because we exist inside the protective bubble of America. But if you're a civilian in a foreign country that we've occupied, they would likely suffer just as much regardless of who's in office. "So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of" I said many people in the Democratic base are Green on the spiral... not America in general. Democrats know that they will have to please Green-minded people. So, of course they have to angle their moral leadership in such a way that it doesn't alienate Green... even though the substance of what they're doing is very Orange... and usually very toxic Orange at that. Also, when it comes to development and education of the people, you may see this as happenstance and just a reflection of individual character. But that makes the same mistake that Libertarians who grew up with wealth make about assuming why people are poor. The way that governments and the powerful stay in power is often because the masses are given 'bread and circuses' to keep them depoliticized. Essentially, those in powerful positions want to maintain their power. And an educated and politically informed and engaged populace increases the potential for challenges to power. Prior to the internet, it has always been the case that mainstream media would siphon out most dissident angles to the stories that they share. And of course, public schools would teach things a particular way to either present half-truths about how things work or simply leave it out of the curriculum altogether. No institution is going to give instructions towards its owner's undoing. Now, I'm not saying it's some big cabal of elites behind the curtain doing this. It's just that a lot of very wealthy people own politicians and industries... and thus have a lot of power and control over what the masses see vs what they don't. And it can really be boiled down to the profit motive. But now that the internet exists, we have a different issue. It's that the truth gets lost in a pile of lies. And so, instead of keeping people de-politicized, things are angled in such a way that make people hyper-politicized around a lot of misinformation and magicianry.

Exactly

But you were the one that just brought up with your concerns about how the Vegan diet would cause these issues around expansion of farmland. That's what you said your concern was... that if we all went Vegan, we'd take up too much farmland and cause all these environmental problem. And now, I've answered to your concerns about farmlands expansion and environmental issues it causes and presented you with information that shows that Veganism would actually decrease the amount of farmland used because we wouldn't be farming cattle that eat a ton more crops than human beings could ever hope to. Then, you respond instead by moving the goal posts and saying that the issue isn't farmland expansion and the environmental impacts of it. But instead, the issue is that we have the pressure of monitoring how much farmland we can afford to have. It just shows me that your concern was not for the environmental impact of particular diets from the get go. It was that you have a dislike of the Vegan diet and decided that you were going to reach for ANY argument that debunks it. But you accidentally didn't think it through and made a pro-Vegan argument by bringing up the issue of farmland expansion, which Veganism answers to. So, you had to move the goal posts, so that you could still continue to maintain your anti-Vegan stance while cloaking it in the veneer of concern for environmental issues. Am I right?

The majority of farmland is used to grow food to feed livestock. It's like 80% of farmland here in America... and similar numbers in other places. So, we would use less farmland if the entire world happened to go Vegan. Pigs and Cows eat a lot more than human beings do. So, in order for us to eat them, we need to feed them and raise them. So, the keeping of livestock is the number one cause of problems like soil erosion, pesticides, and eutrophication as well.

First off, a Vegan diet is almost always more environmentally friendly (with maybe the exception being if someone consumes tons of almonds or palm oil). And the reason why is because the animals we consume as food, consume a lot more than we do. And industrial farming practices cause a lot of pollution and contribute significantly to the impacts of global warming. So, my question to you is... 'Given the above facts, how are Vegan diets less environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets?' And if it's the case that you find that Vegan diets are actually MORE environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets, then why aren't you decrying the poor environmental effects of Omnivorous diets? What is the reason for your inconsistency in concern for the environmental impact of particular diets? In your eyes, are the negative environmental effects caused by Omnivorous diets okay while the negative environmental effects caused by Vegan diets are not okay, even though Omnivorous diets cause more environmental problems? Now, I don't doubt that a very small minority of people must eat animal products to thrive. But we have to be careful when we try out a Vegan diet to not let our cravings make us make up a story that "Oh well. I tried. But I guess I'm just one of those people that need meat to survive." The mind can come up with all kids of rationalizations so that we can justify doing behaviors that we disagree with but still want to do. The mind is tricky like that. Also, can you link me to the studies that have shown tall people and people with big brains need to consume animal products? And what do you mean that b12 doesn't work for you? It takes like 2-5 years to burn through the b12 that's stored in your body. So, you can go a very long time without taking any b12 supplements. So, unless you've been Vegan for over 2 years and found that b12 doesn't work... I'm just not sure what you mean by this. And furthermore, there is no reason to temper your meat eating habits by saying that you eat a nearly Vegan diet... or by saying that you will switch to artificial meat if it comes out. It's of little consequence to me if you personally go Vegan or not. So, I'm not judging you. I ate an omnivorous diet for 26 years of my life. But I wonder if you're judging yourself and justifying it to me because you're judging you... and then projecting your judgments of you onto me.

Leo didn't say that the Democrats weren't self-interested. And I don't think he would say that. If he knows anything about American politics at all, he knows that most of these politicians are getting donations (essentially legal bribes) from huge corporations and industries... and even certain special interest groups in other countries like Israel. He just said they were more developed. And that's true on the Spiral Dynamics level of their moral leadership. And moral leadership, is basically about the way that they address the nation and present themselves and give speeches. What they encourage in the populace. So, on the level of moral leadership, Spiral Dynamics differences are evident. But at a certain point, level of development on the Spiral doesn't matter as much... the outcome matters. And Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all continued the offensive regime change wars and toppled so many foreign governments. And they support these wars because they were all getting donations to their Super PACs by lobbyists who work for the Military Industrial Complex. And both Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of their donors... as is anyone who gets bribes from people. There's an automatic conflict of interest when there are bribes as, of course, those billionaire donors want things from those politicians in exchange for their financial support. And you can go online and look up which politicians are taking money from which industries and corporations. It's public record. So, both are HIGHLY motivated to please these donors so that they can continue to get their financial kickbacks and support with financing any future campaigns. So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of.

I think it's a very strong possibility that another more competent version of Donald Trump will come along. The establishment benefits too much from being able to strong arm those who are wanting a more progressive politician or who want to vote third party into choosing between the "lesser of two evils" establishment canditate. So, now that they see that they can run "Neofascist corporatist vs Neoliberal corporatist" and get a ton of people falling in line, they may continue to do worse and worse intonations of that split. It might be a Tucker Carlson... but he wouldn't be the worst. It could really devolve into being some Richard Spencer kind of character.

You've just posted a lot of misinformation, so let me debunk all that first and then tell you why it's likely that Vegans trigger you. Number one, Veganism can be done more cheaply than the omnivorous diet because most naturally Vegan foods are less expensive than meat, dairy, and eggs. For example.. oats, rice, tofu, beans, bread, potatoes, etc. are all very inexpensive foods. Also, Vegans don't need to consume more volume. I eat about the same amount of food as a Vegan as I did when I was eating an omnivorous diet. It's easy to get the number of calories you need for the day on a Vegan diet... potatoes, tofu, beans, lentils, oats, wheat, rice, bananas, etc. are all pretty high calorie foods. And the macro and micro nutrients are also easy to get from Vegan sources. And Veganism is less harmful for the environment because (if everyone went Vegan) we'd use significantly less farmland because 80%+ of the crops currently growing are grown to feed livestock. And cows and pigs eat far more than a human being ever could. Also the methane gas from cows raised for dairy and meat contributes to global warming. So, in the unlikely case that all the world suddenly went Vegan, it would be one of the most beneficial things we could do for the environment. And Vegans don't binge on vitamin pills. The only supplement you NEED as a Vegan is b12. It's the only thing you can't get in a Vegan diet that is present in an omnivorous diet. I take a multi-vitamin and b12. That's it. Also, I've never taken a blood test as a Vegan. There is no need to unless you really want to. And I don't eat a bus load of vegetables... nor do most Vegans. Raw vegans often do eat a ton of food. But the majority of Vegans eat a normal amount as there are many filling Vegan foods. Now that all that is dispelled... There are certainly Vegans who are judgmental and pretentious. But aren't you being very judgmental towards Vegans? You seem to look down your nose at Vegans and thinking you're better than them... so that's a bit pretentious, isn't it? But really, I think what triggers people most about Vegans is that MOST people have Vegan values. It's just that few people live by them. And I think this is probably the source of your judgments about Vegans. Most people hate to see animals suffer, and so there is cognitive dissonance when we continue to eat products that contribute to the suffering of animals. We don't want to give up the foods we're used to. But we also don't want to become aware of the extreme suffering on the other end of those foods. So, when we see Vegans, they remind us of the suffering on the other end of our habits. And it becomes an uncomfortable experience that we'd rather just push away. And this produces projections onto Vegans as a whole group and a lot of effort to "debunk" the Vegan lifestyle by finding flaws in it that aren't there.