Forestluv

True on meta, yet you must have missed my first post in this thread.

The violence on the left is mostly oriented toward property violence. The violence on the right is mostly oriented toward human violence. In SD terms, Green violence vs Red/Blue violence.

Red/Blue understands Red/Blue. They speak each other's language. Taliban spokesperson: "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban," https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-on-trump-we-hope-he-will-win-the-election-withdraw-us-troops/

In this situation, and in the context of zooming in and zooming out, yes. Yet there are other situations in which a simply binary frame has value.

This is part of the challenge of zooming in and zooming out. Each person has an ability range and preference for zooming in and out. It can be difficult of zoom out-ers to communicate with zoom in-ers. When a zoom out-er zooms in - it's important that they use phrases like "x is part of the problem", "x contributes to the problem" etc. For example, we could say "Floyd's fear was a contributing factor in the situation". This is a good balance because we are not getting into the weeds of all the variables in the big picture, yet we are also not dismissing all of those variables. It is very different to say "Floyd's fear caused a self-fulfilling prophecy" because that dismisses all other factors - Zoom out-ers should know better than that. Imagine a soccer team loses a game and someone says "we lost because one of our players got injured in the game". That is too far zoomed in. A zoom out-er can see the bigger picture and should frame it as "the injury to our player was a contributing factor to us losing the game" when speaking to someone too far zoomed in. We aren't getting into the complex variables, yet we are also acknowledging that complex variables exist. Zoom out-ers should be mindful not to fall victim to dismissive categorization.

Placing disproportionate causation onto the victim is a subtle form of "victim shaming". Zooming in to the immediate events that transpired has value, yet if someone is locked into zoom in - the bigger picture inputs are missed and erroneous conclusions are made. Similar to a cellular biologist zoomed into the function of a single protein and then making conclusions about it's relationship to schizophrenia. This has value, yet the biologist also needs to zoom out and see how this protein interacts within a system of a larger protein network, which in turn is within a neural system, which is within a social system. In Leo's 64 keys to a good life, two of his keys were that direct experience is king and don't judge if you don't have direct experience. In this case, the direct experience of living in an environment in which a person cannot fully trust the police or justice system is a key part of understanding the bigger picture dynamics. Importantly, this mistrust is legitimate due to systemic racism of an environment in which poc are targeted, abused and screwed over in the justice system. It's not simply intellectual awareness. Direct experience is king and I'm observing a lot of people making judgments that are either: 1) unaware that they lack this experience, 2) unaware of the value of this experience or 3) dismiss the value of this experience. Before I traveled through central and South America, I had plenty of theoretical knowledge of systemic racism - yet I lacked experience. I had no idea what I was missing. People would tell I was missing something and I thought imagining what it might be like was sufficient - I was wrong. There were places in Honduras and Colombia in which locals pulled me aside and told me to be careful with police. As a white tourist, I was vulnerable to being targeted and abused by police and getting screwed over in the justice system - even if I didn't do anything wrong. They could make up shit and create fines I need to pay for my release. I had no recourse or power. Yet 100% of the cops weren't bad and they didn't misbehave 100% of the time. "You just don't know" was told to me. At times I felt fear, yet to say getting into run-ins with police, getting abused and screwed over in a justice system was a "self fulfilling prophecy" puts waaay too much of a burden on me and is a myopic view. And it would be a subtle form of victim blaming me, that I brought it onto myself through my fear. The problem with that is that fear is not the biggest factor. When locals in Honduras and Colombia were giving me advice about how to interact with cops "Don't fear" didn't even make the list. To anyone claiming that I would respond "Go live in sketchy areas of Honduras and Colombia - and then get back to me about self fulfilling prophecies of fear". And the direct experience is king here. There were times in which I did nothing wrong or something trivially wrong and evading or resisting a cop was an option on the table - for legitimate reasons. I think people without this experience have a very difficult time truly knowing what this is like. Over and over, I see white people lacking this experience omitting this piece. Yes, having a fearful response can contribute to immediate events, yet that is just one piece of a larger system and it's important to zoom out.

@Hansu And as you said, driving them underground creates new challenges - such as tracking them down.

@4201 It’s just another way of looking at it. It’s easy to see that a bird chirp is simply an appearance because we don’t relate to it personally. Any thought can also be considered an appearance like a bird chirp. Yet the mind and body can have a different relationship with thought. If those chirps were birds telling me they were going to come and peck my eyes out - I wouldn’t be bothered at all by it - because I don’t speak bird language and I wouldn’t relate to the impulses negatively. Thoughts are similar, yet much harder to detach and see as bird chirps - due to associated meaning we give thoughts.

I’m referring to the appearance of the bird chirp itself - not the thought “that is bird chirp” Would you consider the appearance of a bird chirp itself to be a belief? (No thoughts about it being a bird chirp arise).

Yes, the receiver needs higher levels of open-mindedness, curiosity and willingness as the material gets more nuanced and complex.

It marginalizes them from the mainstream and limits their spread. Vulnerable people have gotten sucked into Qanon since it is so widespread and normalized on Facebook. These people have never even heard of fringe sites like 4chan. It's similar to a virus, the further marginalized the virus the less it will spread through a population. Or consider access to drugs. There are some drugs that people would probably try if they were more accessible. Yet to get them, people would have to get on the darkweb. Most people haven't even heard of the darkweb and wouldn't have the skills or patience to try to get setup. If these drugs were easily accessible with a click of a button on Amazon, usage would dramatically increase.

Sometimes it's nice to observe the phenomena. Imagine there is a happening that arises that we call "the sound of a bird chirp". Is that a belief? Is there a self holding on to the bird chirp appearance? Imagine there is a happening that arises that we call "a thought of an elephant". Is that a belief? Is there a self holding on to the elephant thought appearance? Imagine there is a happening that arises that we call "a thought that he is arrogant". Is that a belief? Is there a self holding on to the 'he is arrogant' thought appearance? Observe the appearance of phenomena like a thought and the relationship to that thought. If the thought "I'm a terrible person" arose in Chinese, it would not be bothersome to me since I don't understand Chinese. If the thought arose in English, the likelihood my body finds it bothersome would increase since I understand English.

More nuance makes understanding less accessible for many reasons. The window of transmission narrows. The receiver needs a higher level of open-mindedness, curiosity and willingness to put time and effort into learning and expanding their view. There are all sorts of blocks on the receiver end. As well, the margin of error decreases for the transmitter. The transmitter must articulate with more precise meanings of words relative to how the receiver interprets. The transmitter also needs a balance of simplicity and complexity - if they undershoot or overshoot, the chance of misunderstanding increases. And the transmitter needs to be aware of blocks in the receiver. It's much more than the science of intellect and concepts - there is also the art of intuition and connection. I worked under an intellectual that couldn't communicate his ideas. When he wrote and spoke, everything made sense in his own mind yet he was never able to see it from the perspective of the receiver. From the perspective of the listener/reader, it was a mess. I would often "translate" his manuscripts before submission to publication. I could figure out what he was trying to communicate and re-write it in a way that normal people could understand. Yet it took a lot of work. I've also re-written manuscripts of academics whose second language was English - it's a similar process.

If Tim is acting, he deserves and Academy Award.

Sure, there are much deeper problems. Trump and MAGA are in a symbiotic relationship. Yes, yet there are degrees.

It goes waaay beyond his egoic personality. He is causing serious harm to people and systems of governance.

@Mvrs One day I wondered "What if I was a different being that really wanted my awareness of me to continue? I had a strong desire and intention to continue on after my death. Would I become aware of just 'me'? Would I get to bring all my memories, feelings, desires with me? How would I know if I returned?". Then I suddenly realized: I'm back!! It worked!! Holy shit, it feakin' worked!!

Russell made a comment about how Trump has gone beyond parody. As well, Trumpers have gone beyond parody.

Duplicate thread

Russell deconstructs Trump's communication style. In particular, how Trump speaks about complex issues in simple narratives and uses mass media in a way no other politician can. He also takes a look at how Trump uses nuggets of truth and his psychology.

Is there an infinite bottom for Trumpists? Trump campaign official attacks Governor Whitmer after the FBI stopped a "militia" kidnapping / execution plot against her.

Changing demographics is the biggest issue. Around 2004 or so, the GOP saw the writing on the wall and intentionally modified their platform to tone down white supremacy and be more inclusive. George Bush, McCain and Romney all made efforts. Yet Trump saw he could squeeze one last election if he leveraged traditional GOP platforms targeting conservative/moderate white voters. By intensifying the appeal to white grievances - Trump pulled out a lot of non-voting uneducated whites with grievances. These voters did not resonate with the "compassionate conservatism" of the neo-GOP. Yet Trump has lost moderates that were willing to give Trump a chance - thinking he was a successful businessman. Trump is trying to energize his base, yet it's not enough to win. And his chaotic, contradictory messaging on the election is awful for GOTV of his base. One day Trump is trying to win the election and encouraging his base to vote early and mail in. The next day he says the election and voting is fraudulent. Trump is trying to have it both ways and it's a terrible strategy. Why would a Trumper vote early if early voting is fraudulent? Why wait in line on election day if the election is rigged against you? Early voting data suggests Dems have a huge advantage. Trump telling his base to wait to vote on election day has a huge risk. Putting all of his eggs into the election day basket is a terrible strategy. All sorts of things can happen on election day to dissuade voters from going to the polls. In some areas, the weather will be bad. Some people will be sick on election day. Some people leave work late and are tired, they don't feel like waiting in line. Some people will have a problem pop up in their life to deal with.

Duplicate Thread:

During the primary, Mayor Pete was a well-oiled platitude machine that drove stage Green crazy. Yet I now think Mayor Pete has some legit communication skills and can play a role in pulling up high blue/low orange into solid/high orange. In this video, the Fox host asks about how Kamala has shifted her positions, such as M4A. I think this is a fair question and the left heavily criticized her for it. From my POV, Peter skillfully reframes the question. He first portrays himself as having a mature detached view and speaks of how this is a common game in politics. Yet this is just a segway into "both-sidesism" and "what-about-ism" on Pence. He hits Pence's hypocrisy on two Blue issues: Trump's affairs and immigration policies. Pete then pivots back to a derogatory tone of "if we want to play that game" as if he isn't playing that game right now. Importantly, by saying "if we want to play that game", he doesn't directly accuse the hosts that "you are playing that game". This diffuses the common 'me vs you' antagonist framework and there is no need for the hosts to get defensive. We are all above playing that childish game. After sneakily playing that game, Pete suggests that we are all above playing that immature game and neutralizes the hosts. They are literally speechless. Pete is smooth as silk. So chill. He isn't defensive, antagonistic or argumentative. Here, the Fox hosts are unaware consciously that they just got played, yet seem to be aware that something odd just happened. It's very possible that they realize this dynamic and adapt. In the next video, Pete sounds like a FoxNews correspondent with a Biden-Harris backdrop. He sounds very reasonable, easy-going and can give some FoxNews viewers a dose sanity. I would put Steve Doocy at high blue / low orange. Pete is pulling Steve along and has him saying "Yes. . . right. . . yes. . . right. . . ". This affirms to the FoxNews viewers that what Pete says is reasonable and sane. Yet it so chill that it reduces the tendency of FoxNews viewers to react defensively with "He is so biased!! He is a Marxist!!". And Pete seamlessly slips in some Trump zingers into their subconscious. Pete connects with the audience about how the new normal is with teleconferencing. At times it sucks, yet we do it because we are responsible caring people. Over and over, Pete injects a "we-ness" of normalcy. Everyone wants to have the self image of being a caring person. Rather than attack "you" as being an uncaring, irresponsible anti-masker, Pete portrays safety precautions as mature, responsible and caring - which many people want to self identify. Remember, Blue is hyper sensitive and defensive to blame, shame, guilt, being talked down to, being called misogynistic, racist etc. After establishing safety pre-cautions such as zoom virtual meetings as responsible, mature and caring - Pete feigns confusion on why Trump would be against it. He says "I don't know why he would want to be in a room full of other people if he is contagious with a deadly disease". This implicitly suggests it is because Trump is irresponsible and uncaring of others. We already know this, yet FoxNews viewers don't. Psychological research has shown this level of implicit messaging does not have a lot of strength and Pete goes one step further by asking himself "I don't know, maybe it's because he doesn't care about people". This is a stronger implicit message that Trump are irresponsible and doesn't care about you. Yet Pete does it with a chill tone. It's not accusatory that Trump supporters are irresponsible and uncaring. He already established that we are responsible and caring - so it must just be Trump. This won't resonate with the Red/Blue Tucker / Hannity viewers or MAGA. They are too far identified and would be turned off by Pete. In their simplistic binary mindset, anything not Trump = evil Antifa Marxist. Yet I think Pete can connect with the high blue / low orange 'reasonable conservatives'. In particular how his framing of "we are good, responsible, hardworking people" implicitly includes reasonable conservatives and marginalizes Trump. Imo, that can be effective in capturing people that are weakly identified to Trump. This is the opposite dynamic of Hilary calling Trump's base a "basket of deplorables". Keep in mind that FoxNews viewers cannot be pulled up to a Cornel West Green level of consciousness. Yet some of them can be pulled up to an Orange Mayor Pete level. In SD theory, this is an important jump in cognitive development & social evolution. Mayor Pete makes a valuable contribution in this area. As well, I have a hunch that FoxNews is intentionally giving Pete a relatively safe platform to hedge their bets, since they can see Trump will likely lose. The conflict at Fox is whether to push the narrative of election fraud and we can't let Dems steal the election. Or whether to begin preparing for a post-Trump world. In a Biden presidency, FoxNews would want access to the majority party and would much prefer schmoozing with a Mayor Pete than an AOC.