Forestluv

Exactly, notice how you are placing restrictions on free speech. The issue is not wether there should be 100% free speech. You yourself said there should not be. The issue becomes where to draw the line. You want to draw the line at illegal conduct. Yet then the question becomes where to draw the line of what is “illegal conduct”. This also is highly nuanced with grey areas. For example, you say that teaching people how to kidnap children is excluded from free speech. What about someone that was writing about his imaginations of how one might kidnap children? He says that this is just “creative writing” and he is not teaching anyone how to kidnap children. Yet is “creative writing” about kidnapping children is so detailed, it is effectively a “how to” manual for kidnappers to kidnap children. Do you see the nuances here? There is not clear cut line that can be drawn. There will always be grey areas. It is not binary. It is a spectrum.

It’s the same dynamic with speech. If my speech is teaching people online how to kidnap children and get away with it, it is not protected. It would be absurd to say “If he loses his right to free speech, we all lose our right to free speech!” An absolute binary construct of 100% free speech or 100% no free speech in untenable. It is a spectrum and a line must be drawn somewhere.

This only looks at one side of the die. ? It depends on what that loss was over. Suppose someone is prevented from freedom of expression. One may say “If he loses his freedom of expression, we all lose our freedom of expression”. . . Yet what that freedom of expression was is important. There is a difference between being prevented from wearing a hat of your favorite sports team vs. burning down someone’s house. Those freedom of expressions are not equivalent. Yet to the arsonist, he is being treated unfairly.

The INTP ‘Money Shot’ ?

Cool! I wasn’t aware of this. On my booklist! Actually, Graves had quite a bit of empirical data including hundreds of students essays over years. The main reason his work was not disseminated into academic psychology is because he died before his work was published. Remember, he lived before the internet. If someone didn’t publish their work, it didn’t get disseminated. What do the greatest psychologists in this area consider of Grave’s work? Well the great Abraham Maslow admitted at the end of his life that Graves work was far more sophisticated and superior to his hierarchy of needs. Yet Maslow was able to disseminate his model throughout academia. It is in every psychology textbook and is taught in every psychology department around the world. Every psychology student learns it and then those that become psychologists and psychology teachers then teach it. It is passed on from generation to generation.

That is not the sensationalism. This was a crime and the person should be charged for murder. Yet the story should be told accurately. Framing it as if some woman was simply walking down the street and said “All Lives Matter” and got shot for it is a distortion for sensationalism. It gets more clicks and online traffic. These were two groups, both armed with guns. There was a racially-charged encounter that BOTH groups contributed to and BOTH groups drew weapons and threatened to kill each other. This in no way condones the shooting and there should be a charge of murder. Yes, people are getting killed on both sides of racially-charged encounters. Yet to frame this as a white woman simply walking along saying “All Lives Matter” and getting shot for it by a BLM gang is a gross misrepresentation of the incident. These types of misrepresentations have become common place on the internet. It fuels people’s agendas and spikes up internet traffic.

This is an example of sensationalist framing. She was not “murdered for saying ‘All Lives Matter’”. There was a confrontation between two groups and BOTH groups contributed to the escalation. Her group was yelling racial slurs and I’m sure the other group was also using some strong profanity as well. Both groups were armed and threatened to kill each other. It de-escalated to the point they separated. Someone from the other group, returned and shot her. This of course is excessive violence and this person should be charged for murder. Yet to frame this as a woman simply walking along saying “All Lives Matter” and getting shot for it, is a gross distortion. It’s not even known if she was the one who yelled “All Lives Matter”.

Yes, of course. This is a form of wisdom. I’ve certainly made many errors in this area. Yet at the edges it disempowers. One cannot point to a somewhere and have it be seen the same from the perspective of all other somewhere’s.

For sure. I have no problem within that context of which creates suffering, rather than healing. That context has enormous value, yet not the context I was referring to. You are recontextualizing, which is fine and has value within that contextualization. Yet it is not the original contextualization. And within that original contextualization there is the development of understanding, harmony and healing. To me, you are creating and immersing yourself into intellectual constructs, which have value yet are missing a different mode of observation and being. You seem to disagree with that, which is totally fine. I am as wrong as you create me to be.

Within that construct, I agree and think that is a super interesting area to explore. Yet here, I am not exploring the actual reality of no such thing as a man and woman. Here, I am exploring the actual reality of man and woman. Yet an exploration of the actuality of man and woman by no means negates the actuality of no man and woman. If we are exploring the actuality of no man and woman, how can we explore the actuality of man and woman? If we limit our exploration to the essence of room 240, how can we explore the essence of room 242 and the inter-connectedness between the rooms? I don’t disagree with your descriptions of room 240, it’s just not the room I was describing. It’s some good stuff though. Any analogy can be invalidated from a different perspective. Yet in doing so, we blind ourselves to the analogy’s value from another perspective. If I give an analogy of room 242, it can easily be invalidated from a perspective of room 240. This is true from this perspective, yet a contraction into the perspective of room 240 will exclude the perspective from room 242.

Of course. Asymmetry does not mean exclusion. Yes, this is why I included the example of a sly rabbit manipulating a naive fox. I am referring to a specific asymmetric sexual dynamic between men and women. You can extrapolate things, yet doing so distorts the asymmetric sexual dynamic I am referring to. I love exploring different dynamics, yet I’ve found context is important. If we are exploring hotel room 242, describing room 240 as if it was room 242 will distort the exploration of room 242 ISness. . . I’m totally into looking at how room 240 and 242 are inter-connected, yet that is a different exploration than exploring within room 242. Both explorations have value.

@Hank Galaxy Brain I did not make the statement attributed to me in that quote. “I was the progressive left for the majority of my life and I slowly distanced myself from them over the years because I saw countless examples of EGO. Big fat ego, arrogance, self-righteousness, absolutism, group think, violence, smearing, us vs. them, intimidation and so forth.” <= I did not make that statement. Perhaps a glitch in the forum quoting system.

Sexual consent is massively asymmetrical between men and women. This is one of the most obvious gender asymmetries there is. Imagine someone saying “If a rabbit tried to kick a fox’s butt, the fox would probably enjoy it”. This points out the massive asymmetry between a rabbit and a fox. Are there cases in which a sly rabbit tricks a fox and abuses the fox? Are there rare cases in which an aggressive jack rabbit assaults a naive fox? As Cenk would say: “Of Cooouuurse!!!”. Yet this does not take away the underlying asymmetry. The vast majority of foxes can freely roam without a worry of being assaulted by a rabbit.

@Parththakkar12 Without mitigation effort, how do you propose to treat sick people? When hospitals have hit 100% capacity, there are no doctors, nurses or hospital beds available for anyone. This includes people with cancer, heart attacks, car accidents, strokes etc. Look at areas that didn’t have serious mitigation efforts last spring: Arizona, Texas and Florida. From April - May people were talking about how the virus is a hoax, it’s just a bad flu, demanding their rights to go to bars, shouting about my right to go to a grocery store without a mask. . .meanwhile the virus spread like wildfire. Now they are near 100% hospital capacity and republicans are finally realizing “Ohhh, so 100% hospital capacity would mean nobody has access to health care. That’s not good, right?”. This is what the combination of leadership, trusting experts, social cohesion and safe re-opening looks like. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52961539

During the revolutionary war when America gained independence, building a national army to fight for independence from England could be considered a ‘progressive’ idea. I’m sure there were some conservatives that said “Let’s keep the status quo and be under British rule”. There were probably some benefits of British rule that conservatives liked. Yet once independence was established, no progressives ever went back and said let’s go back to being under control of Britain. Later, during the 1800s conservatives fought for states rights and wanted their own militias. Yet it’s important to finish the sentence. . . They wanted militaries to protect states rights. . . to own slaves. That is what the military and states rights was over. Owning slaves. Progressives wanted to abolish slavery and knew that a collective military as The Union was needed to do so. Similarly, the south knew they also need a collective military and formed the Confederacy. The progressive vs conservative battle was not over states rights to have their own military - it was over states rights to own slaves. Every progressive today has the same position of progressives then: slavery is bad and the oppression of minorities is bad. Today, progressives’ issues with the military is U.S. imperialism and the military industrial complex. The U.S. spends an absurd amount of money on the military - about $800 billion a year. As much as the next 10 countries combined. The U.S. military can blow up the world several times over. And there is grotesque corporate profiteering off of building military weapons and engaging in war. People are becoming billionaires off of it. These are the issues today’s progressives have with the military. These issues are totally different than in the 1800s. And in 100 years, future progressives are unlikely to look back and say “Let’s abolish Medicare for All and go back to war mongering and profiteering”.

Freeing slaves was once the progressive position that conservatives fought against. Is freeing slaves now archaic and barbaric? Similarly, allowing gay people to get married is a progressive position. In 100 years, progressives are not going to look back and say “Allowing gay people to marry each other is archaic and barbaric!!”. Progressivism builds on itself. Progressives first fought to allow people in inter-racial relationships to get married, then they fought to allow gay people to get married. It’s like learning math. We first learn algebra and then learn calculus. While learning calculus we don’t say “Algebra is archaic. Let’s do calculus without algebra!”.

It’s not an either / or thing to me. It would be like an athlete lifting weights. In certain contexts, lifting weights can be beneficial to the athlete. Yet in other contexts, it is harmful. If an athlete lifts too many weights, he can get injured. If an athlete lifts heavy weights the day before a game, their performance will go down. Yet, just because lifting weights can be a negative, it wouldn’t be wise to say “Lifting weights is bad. Let’s never lift weights”. Rather, it would be better to strategically design a weight lifting program that maximizes it’s benefits and minimizes the risks and harm. From a relative perspective, love is not being an enabler. If my friend is destroying his life due to alcoholism, love is not enabling is alcoholism. Love is an intervention to show him the impact of alcoholism on him, his family and his friends. This can be extremely uncomfortable for the alcoholic to look at. Yet it is a form of “tough love” for him.

I agree this is a useful strategy. Yet it is one component of a larger strategy. There can be a multi-pronged strategy. I agree that this has strategic value and green can get too emotional and idealistic. However, marginalization and shaming can have a powerful impact. Look at the Lincoln Project. These are ex-republican conservatives. They know how conservatives think, because they have been conservative. Look at some of their ads. They can be absolutely brutal in marginalizing, stigmatizing and shaming racism. And they are very effective. Sometimes it’s wise to hold someone’s hand and lead them. Other times it’s wise to punch a bully. From a strategic standpoint, ostracizing and ridiculing can be effective in some contexts. It helps shape the boundaries of acceptable social behavior. If men can lose their jobs for harassing women and gay people, it is incentive not to harass women and gay people at the workplace.

The perspectives of whiners and complainers are not passive and powerless. People like Trump, Hannity and Tucker are the biggest whiners and complainers and they are extremely overt and have influential power. Even someone like JP is a whines and complains - yet he does it in a more reasonable tone. He is able to communicate and have discussions with green. The more extremes like Hannity are uninterested and incapable of having conversations with green. To rabid red / blue, green is the enemy and conversing with them would be a form of negotiating and surrendering. Hardline blue is portraying green as if they are terrorists and they don’t want to negotiate with terrorists.

That’s a step in the right direction. Marginalization and stigmatization works in both directions. Green is intolerant of intolerance. Green’s preference is that people will evolve toward genuine inclusion and equality. If that is not possible, then they want to marginalize intolerance. Some people view inclusion and equality as a threat to their culture, customs, traditions etc. And from one perspective, they are correct. I grew up in the 1980s and that culture, customs and traditions have fizzled out. In some ways, it’s sad and I miss it. Yet in other ways, it’s nice to see new things appear. This is the dynamic with conservatives and progressives. Conservatives don’t want old ways of being to fizzle out. Most conservatives are decent people and they prefer things stay as they have been. They begrudgingly go along with newer stuff. They may complain along the way. For others, it’s much more intense. There is fear and survival dynamics thrown in. Now, saying “Happy Holidays” is not inclusion, it is a “War on Christmas”. It is an existential threat. Taking down a statue of a Confederate slave trader becomes a mortal threat to “our history and culture”. This is the game Tucker and Trump are playing. They want to intensify fear of survival in conservatives. I think there is something to this. That is, show the good aspects of diversity such that people will want to join in. For example, there could be a festival in a city with diverse food, music, dancing, art, culture. Some of the musicians on stage may make a comment about how they love the diverse environment. People like being a part of that. I think attraction is important. Yet this is much easier to do in urban areas that are inherently diverse. If NYC has a festival that is diverse, that is totally normal for NYC, since they are diverse. Yet if a festival of diversity is held in Oklahoma it may be perceived by Mr. McWhiterson as “those liberals shoving their lifestyle down my throat”. As well, there is only so much behavior to be tolerated, especially at systemic levels. I’m not so concerned about a few guys telling racist jokes during poker night in their home. I’m more concerned about employers firing their employees because they find out they are gay. It depends on the issue. For example, progressives may want to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to a very high rate. Conservative economists may enter and say “I know you mean well, yet if you raise the taxes that high, there will be unintended consequences”. Progressives should be open to that. Some progressives want to have pure form of democratic socialism. Yet it might be better to have a socialism / capitalism mix. Some progressives can only see the toxicity of excessive capitalism. Yet there are benefits to. For example, moderate competition is healthy for progress - and that’s what progressives desire - progress. Imagine that everyone has their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met. Most people (not all) will have a desire to do something. To learn, create, produce and contribute something. Adding in moderate competition can be healthy to stimulate and speed up people to reach their higher potential and contributions. This is one variable, yet it is insufficient for a high pace of progress. For example, decades ago there was a huge theme of “Celebrate Diversity!”. It was a progressive theme phrase. As well, gay people started to be shown on TV shows as normal people. This is important, yet insufficient. Progressives don’t want to wait 100 years for people to ‘naturally’ come around and realize gay people are not scary, immoral people that want to shove their ‘lifestyle’ down their throats. In addition to raising consciousness from social networks, education and laws are important as well. 100% voluntary compliance takes forever to evolve. It would take hundreds of years for everyone to realize it’s not OK to fire someone because they are gay. Thus, there needs to be education and ant-discrimination laws. Of course, that pressure will cause some conservatives to scream and complain. That is a price of speeding up progress. I would rather have LGBTQ be legally protected in the workplace now and have conservatives whine and complain, rather than waiting 100 years for conservatives to naturally come to realize it.

In the past, my mind would immediately go into practical advice and problem-solving mode. This can have a lot of value in some contexts, yet it can also prevent connection in the moment. When we are naturally connecting, I’m often doing more listening and saying things like “How are you feeling?”, or “Yea, I was in a similar situation and know how it feels. Have you had any moments of clarity or inspiration?”. It goes over best when spontaneous and genuine. If it seems like I’m ‘trying’ to say the right things, the connection isn’t as good. There is a time and place for practical problem solving and making a plan. Yet in another time and place, jumping to problem solving can communicate to a person “there is something wrong with you now, you should be something different - let’s get you there”. When people are upset, they can feel especially sensitive to be judged as not good enough. It’s often better to simply talk about feelings in a way that they are ok feeling the way they are.

Beautiful. I’ve read that Belize has the highest biodiversity of any country. They have enormous diversity in both the oceanic, forested and jungle ecosytems. I traveled through the jungles and it was mind blowing. Every time I looked in a new direction there was a new whacky plant, animal or insect.

Yes, it is a highly nuanced topic that includes many subtopics. Most people are not at that stage of discourse, so unfortunately a general term such as “diversity” is used. The problem is that if the term becomes too vague or includes everything, then the term no longer has meaning.

This is right-wing victim mentality. Of course there will be growing pains as society moves up the spiral. There will be problematic approaches that arise, since there is some degree of trial and error. Notice how Tucker frames diversity training. He doesn’t frame it as something of value. He doesn’t frame it as Seattle is not teaching diversity training well. He doesn’t offer Seattle ideas to improve their diversity training. Rather, he frames it as evil liberals trying to destroy us white people. We are victims of the evil liberals imposing their hate values on us. It is ironic how right-wingers often point at the left as having victim mentality, when they themselves commonly display victim mentality. Those that are against diversity are in favor of segregation. If you are in favor of living together in diverse communities, the question is not whether we should try to increase harmony within diverse communities - the question is: how do we best promote progress toward that harmony within diverse communities? Notice how Tucker does not value diversity. It is fair to criticize counter-productive aspects within the Seattle diversity training project - yet notice how Tucker does not suggest ways to improve diversity training. Someone who criticizes from above would point out the flaws in Seattle’s approach, describe why they are problematic and then offer better ideas toward the goal of educating people about diversity so that there can be upward evolution. For example, I’ve noticed that a lot of new diversity and anti-racism projects have aspects that can introduce sham and guilt dynamics. Imo, green needs to wake up and realize this is a major counter-productive dynamic. One problem is that some greens DO want to shame and guilt white people. Another problem is that many white people are fragile and hyper-sensitive. And lastly, many of these biases are subconscious and shame / guilt is totally inappropriate when revealing subconscious biases.

Yep. It has patches of value in narrow limited scopes, yet fails in the bigger picture.