Forestluv

This is how I would sound if someone asked if I was excited to fight Conor McGregor in the octagon.

Nope. Just albinos. Magical thinking can seem so irrational. From a science perspective, albinism is simply a change in DNA sequence for a gene that produces melanin. Yet that can't be communicated to those that believe in the magic. It's like they walked out of a time portal from the 12th century.

Nina Turner would be outside that comfort zone.

The neoliberal corporate plutocracy doesn't like her and that's what's driving Biden's campaign right now. Plus, a white academic from Massachusetts just doesn't fit the times right now. I think there was a lot of pressure for Joe to meet the social unrest with a poc. In a sense, it's tokenism - yet that is a sign of the times.

I think it's a good choice in terms of electoral politics. Trump donated TWICE to Harris' AG campaigns in the past. How can Trump go hard on her, when he donated to her AG campaigns? Trump's team is trying to portray her as a scary left-wing socialist, yet she is nowhere near that. The only people that will believe she is a left-wing extremist is FoxNews / Briebert watchers. Harris is Orange-centered. She is the darling of Silicon Valley and Big Tech. She also has Orange-level personal ambition. She's got some Blue remnants with her Law and Order + War on Drugs orientation. She has some Green, yet she is not a progressive and is unpopular with progressives (yet tolerable and not as bad as Susan Rice). I think the hope for progressives is that Harris doesn't have an enormous Green shadow like Trump and conservatives. And her Orange-level personal ambition works both ways - she can go with or against Green. She started off her presidential campaign in with mostly progressive positions. She was pro M4A (green) and signed on to Bernie's bill. Yet when she wasn't doing well in the polls, she shifted toward a public option and privatized health insurance (orange). She would easily support legalization of cannabis, yet is taking Biden's position on decriminalization because that's what she needs to do to be VP. I think she is open to dealing with Green if it is to her personal benefit. She will likely run for president in 2024 and if the polls show strong public support for progressive issues like M4A and GND, I can easily see her taking those positions. The question for me is whether she is willing to fight for it like Bernie or AOC would. So far, the answer is no. Yet I can see potential for her to evolve up to Green - she doesn't have a big Green shadow and societal momentum is heading toward Green.

Tribal lore in Tanzania is that Albinos have magical powers and if you ingest the crushed bones of albinos, you will gain magical powers. Albinos are still hunted in parts of Africa today and need armed security protection.

The meaning of love and polygamy in the Maasai Tribe, Tanzania

Exploring alternative medicine is fine, yet anti-germ misinformation is over the line.

Blue-level Christian newlyweds describe losing their virginity on their wedding night: https://local.theonion.com/horribly-awkward-first-sexual-encounter-worth-the-wait-1819565082

Condoms are not sexually repressive, they are sexually liberating!! You seemed to acknowledge that Blue is sexually repressive, yet now seem to be backtracking. A few examples of Blue sexual repression: NO sex out of wedlock. NO polyamory sex NO homosexual sex NO masturbation NO pornography NO Backdoor These are forms of sexual repression. Justifying this repression is another issue.

That is your projection. You seem to hold some Blue-level beliefs about homosexuality and STDs. Justifications for sexual repression do not make it any less repressive. Blue represses sexuality such as pornography, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, polyamory etc. The justifications and practical value of that repression for society is a different issue. The sexual repression could be 100% justified and it would still be sexual repression.

I would say there is also underlying attachment and identification to beliefs. Imagine we were discussing what alien life in a far away galaxy might be like. Since we are just speculating, I would hold ideas loosely - especially if I’ve never been to this galaxy and have never met the aliens. For me, disclaimers are a surface level. I can say “This is just my opinion” and still be attached to the beliefs as if they were true. I’m then much more likely to get into debate mode in which my ‘speculations’ are more righteous.

It’s not just you. I point this dynamic out a lot. It’s a common mental dynamic and appears in my mind as well.

Ok, it seems like you believe Blue engages in forms of sexual repression. Blue-level sexual repression has justification and is less intense than red sexual repression and more intense than Orange or Green sexual repression. Imo, Blue-level sexual repression is more intense than Red, since Red is more about the expression of primal desires, rather than the repression of primal desires. Yet this doesn’t mean that Blue level sexual repression has no value toward society. There are likely genetic factors that influence sexual and gender orientation, yet the mechanism would not be what you speculate. Without doubt, it would be a complex multi-genic mechanism that also has environmental inputs. The mechanism would be more like a complex trait like schizophrenia in which many genetic and environental inputs are involved.

To me, it doesn’t seem like you have a curious, speculative mindset. You seem to be speaking as if you believe your ‘speculations’ are true. You call out others for subscribing to beliefs like they are True, yet you don’t seem to see yourself as subscribing to beliefs as if they are True. If everything you have written in this thread is merely speculation about something you don’t know, would that change the context for you?

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I’m curious about your fundamental position relative to the thread theme. Is your position that sexual repression does not exist at stage Blue? Or is your position that there is Blue sexual repression, yet from a Blue perspective it would not be seen as sexual repression?

Red is hyper individualistic. Red doesn’t have communal values such as patriotism. That enters at Blue.

I’m not saying that sexual repression is exclusive to Blue or that Blue-level sexual repression lacks practical value. I am simply pointing out that sexual repression exists at a Blue level and that, to some extent, Blue has awareness and intentionality of sexual repression. Yet there can also be Blue desires to purify away immoral sexual desires. One example would be with homosexuality. From a Blue perspective, if homosexual desires arose it would be better to repress the immoral desire and refrain from the behavior than to act on it. Yet Blue may also think the person should purify away the immoral homosexual desires via prayer, counseling or conversion therapy. Is your position that sexual repression does not exist at the Blue stage? Or is your position that a blue perspective would not see it as sexual repression?

@outlandish I think you make a good point about judging from above vs. understanding a perspective from within that perspective. It’s hard for me to get back immersed into the Blue mindsets that were conditioned into me.

I would question if even that is true. Blue can believe pornography, sex out of wedlock and homosexuality are immoral and those desires should be repressed. I grew up in a fundamental Catholic environment and people around me would straight-up say to ‘repress’ certain sexual desires - either ‘repress’ it internally by the personal or through external force. I think it gets into semantics on whether we should use the word “repression” or terms like “push away”, “inhibit” or “restrain”. From what I’ve observed, there can be awareness and intentionality of sexual repression/inhibition/restraint from a Blue perspective. In addition to repression/inhibition/restraint, there can also be the perspective of ‘purifying’ those immoral sexual desires away through prayer, confession and conversion. As well, there can be a perspective of rationalizing the imposition of moral sexual behavior for the good of society. From my observations, these attitudes are not mutually exclusive. If I asked people in the fundamental Catholic community I was raised if immoral sexual desires should be repressed, I imaginemost would say “yes” because it is better to repress an immoral sexual desire than to act on it. It would be like me asking them if a husband should repress a desire to beat his children. They would say “yes”,. Yet they are not limited to that view. In addition to repressing the immoral desire, they may suggest that the person find Jesus or get some counseling.

I’m not pointing to condoning or defending Blue-level behavior. I’m not saying Blue-level sexual repression is wrong, lacks value or is unjustified. I’m simply pointing out that it is sexual repression, which the OP doesn’t seem willing to acknowledge.

@GenuinePerspectiveXC You are highlighting the practical value of controlling sexual activity for social stability, from a Blue perspective. Yet you aren’t acknowledging the sexual repression inherent within that control. For example, Blue positions against birth control, pornography, homosexuality and sex outside of wedlock are forms of sexual repression. Blue can do this via laws, religion and guilt/shame. Whether this has practical value for social stability is distinct of it’s repressive nature.

By your own definition, you are unenlightened. How can a mind define that which it does not know?

This looks like an interesting development to me. There are efforts to start a new Progressive party called the “People’s Party”. They will be holding a Peoples Convention on Aug. 30th. Their stated intention is: The People’s Convention will discuss plans to build the largest party in America in the next four years, including building local hubs and state parties, sending representatives to Congress and local office in 2022, and winning the presidency in 2024. At the conclusion of the Convention we will hold a historic vote on forming a major new corporate-free political party in America. Cornel West and Nina Turner will be the keynote speakers at the People’s Convention and they have high name recognition and influence with progressives. There is a lot of populist progressive energy that they could tap into. I’m curious if this will be a cathartic sideshow for disgruntled progressives or if it could gain steam. I noticed Jimmy Dore is also prominently listed, which shifts the vibe toward angry venting progressives. I think people like Krystal Ball, Ana Kasparian or Sam Seder would have given more mature progressive grounding. https://peoplesparty.org/