Is Stage Green Currently Losing Influence?

[Emerald]

27 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Not only will he get less laid, he would also not be famous, he wouldn't be rich and he would basically have no status.

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

Going back to politics, we did get some historic progressive leaning stuff under Biden, but now I feel like the progressive movement started by Bernie Sanders around 2016 turned out to largely be a failure overall.

If anything, I feel like it mostly backfired on liberals and Democrats for the long-run.

Edited Monday at 01:18 AM by Hardkill

[Emerald]

Just now, Hardkill said:

Going back to politics, I feel like the progressive movement started by Bernie Sanders around 2016 turned out to largely be a failure.

It's too short of a period of time to determine what fails and what doesn't fail.

Often time, it's the case that short term failures lead to long terms successes. And that the long terms successes require short term failures for the collective to learn lessons.

[Hardkill]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's too short of a period of time to determine what fails and what doesn't fail.

Often time, it's the case that short term failures lead to long terms successes. And that the long terms successes require short term failures for the collective to learn lessons.

Bernie Sanders and his progressive movement caused too many young people, liberals/progressive, and disaffected moderates and independents to stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, which caused the rise of Trump and MAGA in 2016. Progressivism back then made all of these voters feel too disillusioned with the Democratic party.

 

On 5/23/2024 at 7:20 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Hardkill If Trump wins reelection he will stuff the court with right-wing lunatics for the next 40 years and there will be no progressive legistation chances at all. All of it will be blocked and undone by the court.

You guys don't fully appreciate how bad it will be.

Regarding the 2024 elections, as Leo mentioned before, a significant number of young people, liberals/progressive, and disaffected moderates and independents turned on Biden, Harris, and their party which once again contributed to the return of Trump, MAGA, and fascism. Progressivism made these voters again feel too disillusioned with the Democratic party.

Also, the corporate/establishment wing of the Democratic party will continue to be very influenced by corporate donors and big money in politics. That's not going to change for the foreseeable future. So, how will the Democratic establishment ever shift to promoting more economic populist policies the country desperately needs.

Edited Monday at 01:34 AM by Hardkill

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Bernie Sanders and his progressive movement caused too many young people, liberals/progressive, and disaffected moderates and independents to stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, which caused the rise of Trump and MAGA in 2016. Progressivism back then made all of these voters feel too disillusioned with the Democratic party.

I don't think Bernie is to blame for Hilary's loss. I think she just ran a bad campaign because her whole slogan was "I'm with her" and was focused on electing the first female president without any promise to constituents about what she'd deliver.

That said if elections were fair and it was 1 person/1 vote, Hilary Clinton still clobbered Donald Trump.

Plus, so many people (including me) had their political awakening because of Trump and Bernie. Before then, a lot of people were disengaged.

[Hardkill]

55 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't think Bernie is to blame for Hilary's loss. I think she just ran a bad campaign because her whole slogan was "I'm with her" and was focused on electing the first female president without any promise to constituents about what she'd deliver.

That said if elections were fair and it was 1 person/1 vote, Hilary Clinton still clobbered Donald Trump.

Plus, so many people (including me) had their political awakening because of Trump and Bernie. Before then, a lot of people were disengaged.

Oh no, his divisive toxic rhetoric divided and weakened the party. It made too many young people, liberals/progressive, and disaffected moderates and independents question and feel disillusioned about the governance of the incumbent party holding the White House (Obama and the Democrats). 

Yeah, Hillary Clinton was unpopular, but I talked to a lot of people who voted for Sanders and a lot of moderate and Independents voters out there and they said that they weren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton because they thought that Bernie was right about Obama and the Democratic establishment (including Hillary) having let them down. They also believed that the DNC and the establishment rigged the nomination against Bernie which turned them off from voting for Hillary.

Actually, this is similar to part of why Harris lost. I thought that after Harris became the Democratic nominee, the whole party was strongly united behind her because she received about 99% of the delegate votes and all of the Democratic and progressive leaders in the end backed her. 

However, Lichtman realized in hindsight that Harris's nomination and Democratic party unity was tainted by the fact that Biden and his whole party were openly trashed by a number of Democratic leaders such as Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, Jon Tester as well as by progressive pundits and more mainstream Democratic pundits. This made the whole Democratic party look incompetent and in such disarray which cost Harris and her whole party more votes.

Not to mention, what made that situation unique was that this was the first time in US History where an elected presidential nominee dropped out of the presidential race after winning the presidential primaries followed by Harris running as the new Dem presidential nominee very late. So, she didn't have enough time to win over enough Democratic leaning or liberal-leaning voters.

Plus, to make things even worse, too many progressives out there like Cenk, Ana, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, David Doel, etc. kept whining on and on and on about how Biden and his party weren't doing good enough which further divided the party.

Where do you think the saying "Dems are in disarray" comes from and the implications that has often had on their party?

As for political awakening, I also believe that Trump and Bernie also caused me to become more involved in politics than ever before. However, now I am not sure if that matters anymore.

Edited Monday at 02:38 AM by Hardkill

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Oh no, his divisive toxic rhetoric divided and weakened the party. It made too many young people, liberals/progressive, and disaffected moderates and independents question and feel disillusioned about the governance of the incumbent party holding the White House (Obama and the Democrats). 

Yeah, Hillary Clinton was unpopular, but I talked to a lot of people who voted for Sanders and a lot of moderate and Independents voters out there and they said that they weren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton because they thought that Bernie was right about Obama and the Democratic establishment (including Hillary) having let them down. They also believed that the DNC and the establishment rigged the nomination against Bernie which turned them off from voting for Hillary.

Actually, this is similar to part of why Harris lost. I thought that after Harris became the Democratic nominee, the whole party was strongly united behind her because she received about 99% of the delegate votes and all of the Democratic and progressive leaders in the end backed her. 

However, Lichtman realized in hindsight that Harris's nomination and Democratic party unity was tainted by the fact that Biden and his whole party were openly trashed by a number of Democratic leaders such as Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, Jon Tester as well as by progressive pundits and more mainstream Democratic pundits. This made the whole Democratic party look incompetent and in such disarray which cost Harris and her whole party more votes.

Not to mention, what made that situation unique was that this was the first time in US History where an elected presidential nominee dropped out of the presidential race after winning the presidential primaries followed by Harris running as the new Dem presidential nominee very late. So, she didn't have enough time to win over enough Democratic leaning or liberal-leaning voters.

Plus, to make things even worse, too many progressives out there like Cenk, Ana, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, David Doel, etc. kept whining on and on and on about how Biden and his party weren't doing good enough which further divided the party.

Where do you think the saying "Dems are in disarray" comes from and the implications that has often had on their party?

As for political awakening, I also believe that Trump and Bernie also caused me to become more involved in politics than ever before. However, now I am not sure if that matters anymore.

More Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary then Hillary primary voters voted for Obama.

Cenk got 5 percent in his election, his criticism doesn’t make a dent. Progressives had little impact, even Jill Stein got less votes then she did in 2016. 

Biden being criticized was not the problem, he was extremely unpopular and had to be pushed out otherwise trump would have landslided the country.

Democrats lost way too badly for it to just be progressives, people simply do not like establishment democrats. 

Divisive primaries are irrelevant, republicans had extremely divisive primaries in 2016 and 2024 and won. Democrats didn’t even have a true primary in 2024 and lost badly.

Edited Monday at 03:26 AM by Raze

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

To be clear, my claim is not that having fewer sexual partners is the driving force behind misogyny.

Repression of Feminine aspects of the personality, shame, resentment, and scapegoating are the driving forces behind misogyny. And the "women won't have sex with me" is just an Incel's means of feeling like their resentment and scapegoating is justified and to wallow in self-pity, anger, and shame.

And when misogynists start getting sex with many women through learning pick up, their hatred tends to intensify rather than getting better. 

But it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of misogynists are getting more sex than the average non-misogynistic guy. 

Yet again, perhaps they do seek it more often with pick up and things like that. So, maybe that's the case that they're getting it more because they're seeking it out more.

I'm still not sure about that though because the average misogynist seems to be a lot less social than other guys.

They come across online as victimy and isolated. I think of the keyboard warrior type of guy who does nothing but play video games all day and complain about women. That's my impression of what the average run-of-the-mill misogynist is like.

I rarely think of the hyper-aggressive macho misogynists because that seems to be the exception and not the rule. Perhaps that machismo doesn't translate online, because misogynists all feel pretty catty and bitter. So, what might translate as machismo in person, exudes emotional vulnerability online.

Yet again, my impression is still that most misogynistic guys I've encountered in real life and online are fairly vulnerable guys who don't possess a lot of machismo. 

Maybe the study selected for guys that fit the "misogynistic macho guy" mold and that less masculine misogynists weren't included in the study. I'll have to see how the sampling was done in the study.

 

It’s more likely that the lonely internet misogynist is a vocal minority, and it’s rather unlikely most misogynists began that way and learned pickup, it is rare for a guy to go from bad with women to good with women learning pickup, it’s not a big movement and most people just dabble.

The study was surveying their misogynistic beliefs then matching that with how much they want to have sex compared to how much they have sex to see if less sexually successful men were less or more misogynistic. 

Edited Monday at 03:34 AM by Raze

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

It’s more likely that the lonely internet misogynist is a vocal minority, and it’s rather unlikely most misogynists began that way and learned pickup, it is rare for a guy to go from bad with women to good with women learning pickup.
The study was surveying their misogynistic beliefs then matching that with how much they want to have sex compared to how much they have sex to see if less sexually successful men were less or more misogynistic. 

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny.

I just tend to think of misogynists as being more socially awkward around women because of the hatred patterns.

So, my claim is the inverse of what that study is studying.

It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys.

It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny.

But of course, this could be a vocal minority. But I personally suspect that it's not a minority but the majority based on my experiences.

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny.

I just tend to think of misogynists as being more socially awkward around women because of the hatred patterns.

So, my claim is the inverse of what that study is studying.

It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys.

It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny.

But of course, this could be a vocal minority. But I personally suspect that it's not a minority but the majority based on my experiences.

That exists, but that doesn’t mean it is most misogynists, it’s also possible a man successful with woman becomes a misogynist from bad experiences.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

More Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary then Hillary primary voters voted for Obama.

Cenk got 5 percent in his election, his criticism doesn’t make a dent. Progressives had little impact, even Jill Stein got less votes then she did in 2016. 

Biden being criticized was not the problem, he was extremely unpopular and had to be pushed out otherwise trump would have landslided the country.

Democrats lost way too badly for it to just be progressives, people simply do not like establishment democrats. 

Divisive primaries are irrelevant, republicans had extremely divisive primaries in 2016 and 2024 and won. Democrats didn’t even have a true primary in 2024 and lost badly.

Yeah, because you believe too much in the polls.

Divisive primaries are irrelevant for the party out of power because they aren't the ones governing. When your party is the one governing, then your party will be much more scrutinized by the media and the public than the party out of power will be. After all, the party in charge is the one who bears responsibility for whatever happens under their watch:

Also, why aren't more progressives winning elections than the establishment democrats if people really don't like establishment Democrats?

Edited Monday at 04:52 AM by Hardkill

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

That exists, but that doesn’t mean it is most misogynists, it’s also possible a man successful with woman becomes a misogynist from bad experiences.

That can happen too. It just doesn't match my most common experiences with misogynistic men.

[The Renaissance Man]

Misogyny is a belief that can have multiple causes. I'm quite sure the reason Tate is a misogynist is not the same as the one of his followers. Tate is stage red, immature, manipulative. Misogyny is very convenient for him, because treating women respectfully would imply a whole lot of sacrifices from his current lifestyle.

His followers on the other hand are mostly incels and very socially awkward. This is the root reason they're anxious around women in real life, while still being misogynists. The hatred is born as a nice and convenient justification for their own lack of success. They won't say they hate women by the way. They'll say they hate feminism, wokeism, etc etc, while a "traditional woman" (who would conveniently almost be a slave) is good.

A self-deception fest! At the same time Tate's followers can't find a woman because their lack of social skills is still there, obviously.

And I also find another reason: a sense of revenge. Many of those guys (maybe even most of them) are also swinging to the opposite extreme after 15-20 years of considering women superior goddesses compared to them. Regardless of the reason they had this belief, they had it, and it caused lots of suffering in a very important phase of their lives, as it made them needy, ball-less, and women-repellant.

This goes full circle too, likely being the root of the social anxiety in the first place. So there's this sense of revenge as well, that coupled with the lack of success (and subsequent lots of suffering), convenient demonization, results in this rise in misogyny.

Edited Monday at 09:32 AM by The Renaissance Man

[The Renaissance Man]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny.

Not directly! Tate "showed the way" to misogyny! Incels by themselves tend to remain clueless and desperate. It's too much for them to figure out by themselves how to become attractive after all those years of having different beliefs. So they either:

• Remain incels for life
• Desperately seek solutions elsewhere, adopting anything that makes them improve the hopeless situation (even just the mental side)

Tate, and some toxic aspects of pickup, can lead to misogyny (point 2).

For the full reasoning behind why misogyny is convenient and so easy to adopt from their perspective, my post just above explains my opinion.

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys.

Not all nice guys become misogynysts.

 

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny.

I disagree. Here I do agree with Leo instead. Your typical incel is needy, shy, and awkward around women. Your typical "misogynist", or "asshole", doesn't give a shit. And confidence and being an asshole gets you laid 100x compared to neediness.

Not all nice guys become misogynysts, not all confident guys are misogynysts. But we're talking about two kinds of misogynysts, we need to make a distinction here:

• The Tate kind, who is stage red, confident, manipulative, narcissistic, but still confident!
• The incel kind, who becomes misogynyst after years of being a desperate nice guy with zero success, after hearing convenient Tate-like philosophies.

Will many (maybe most) women reject a narcissist? Possibly. But with incels we're talking zero success. Awkward, shy little boys no girl ever felt attracted to. And I argue they are like that because they have low self-esteem, aka they consider women goddesses, as I said again in my post just above. And this philosophy revenge-swings back from veneration to resentment.

 

Conclusion:

Incel-misogynists are born as nice guys, suffer because their neediness repels women, and adopt convenient toxic ideologies.

Natural-born, stage-red misogynists are much more confident and less awkward, although toxic, and so still get laid much more.

The first is developed as a desperate coping mechanism (and can be transcended much more quickly), the second comes from an actual lack of development and empathy.

 

Or at least, this is my opinion and personal experience going through something very similar.

Edited Monday at 09:52 AM by The Renaissance Man

[Alex4]

Embracing Stage Green is one of the most counterintuitive and biggest step forward you can make in personal development. I believe we should have more empathy for Blue and Orange (ordinary people, not their leaders). If you have MAGA friends or family, simply support them and be a good example. Avoid discussing politics, or do so sparingly.

When I started getting to know several "Stage Greeners" I liked, I began questioning many things.

 

@Leo GuraI think it would be a good idea if you made a video specifically about transitioning from Orange to Green. I know you touch on this topic at the end of the Stage Orange episode, but I believe a video dedicated exclusively to this could be very helpful for a part of your audience.

Edited Monday at 10:12 AM by Alex4

[Bobby_2021]

Likely that a man who couldn't get women succumbs to resentment goes in search of internet daddys who grift them with misogynist ideologies. 

[Raze]

8 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, because you believe too much in the polls.

Divisive primaries are irrelevant for the party out of power because they aren't the ones governing. When your party is the one governing, then your party will be much more scrutinized by the media and the public than the party out of power will be. After all, the party in charge is the one who bears responsibility for whatever happens under their watch:

Also, why aren't more progressives winning elections than the establishment democrats if people really don't like establishment Democrats?

This was tested. There was essentially no 2024 democrat primary, voting was cancelled in states and challengers got no coverage.

Kamala was given the nomination without going through a primary, and democrats did even worse than they did in 2016. 

Progressives don’t win primaries because only a small segment of hardcore democrats vote in them. 

Edited Monday at 01:44 PM by Raze

[Scholar]

13 hours ago, What Am I said:

But what if the greater nutrition from non-vegan-specific foods would help fuel our brains to eventually invent synthetic foods that are superior to animals? In an unintuitive way, wouldn't that actually end up being the more moral option? If heightened human development is to the benefit of all, wouldn't it make sense not to hobble ourselves?

I'm just playing around with ideas. Since I was a vegetarian for so long, you can probably guess that I respect animals and their suffering as well.

I don't think there is any evidence that non-vegan specific foods somehow give us an intellectual edge that will allow us to produce certain technology that otherwise we could not. 

Even if it was the case, it's not in line with our basic ethical views to justify atrocities for the greater good. The limitation of utilitarianism is that you can in theory justify any atrocity for some sort of unproven, potential future good or paradise. The problem is you can't know whether or not you actually are achieving any good at all, because in the end reality might not play out the way you want it to at all. The nazis had to learn this the hard way.

 

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

One of the problems is that we have no healthy stage blue or even orange facilitation in our society. This is the major limitation with the deconstructive approach of stage green, and why stage yellow is the response to it.

Every stage needs to be included in the development of a human being, which it currently is not. The only way for people to learn stage blue values, which are essential to human growth, is through conservatives like Jordan Peterson. In essence, we need stage Yellow individuals who facilitate stage Blue values to adolescence, otherwise they will grow dysfunctional and be swept up by whoever else will sell them these values, packaged in a horrifically degenerate ideology.

This has basically been the failure of society, and it is a failure that stems from our arrogance and the blind rejection of tradition. But it's a natural part of the process, given that the response to this problem is stage yellow.

So, in essence, the reason why stage yellow will emerge is precisely because of this limitation of stage green. 

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I don't think there is any evidence that non-vegan specific foods somehow give us an intellectual edge that will allow us to produce certain technology that otherwise we could not. 

Even if it was the case, it's not in line with our basic ethical views to justify atrocities for the greater good. The limitation of utilitarianism is that you can in theory justify any atrocity for some sort of unproven, potential future good or paradise. The problem is you can't know whether or not you actually are achieving any good at all, because in the end reality might not play out the way you want it to at all. The nazis had to learn this the hard way.

Good point. I can't imagine how much suffering has likely occurred due to those who assumed they were capable of identifying the greater good.

[Stovo]

On 24/11/2024 at 3:51 PM, Basman said:

The right is on the rise in general in Europe as well with an exception of a couple of countries like Denmark, which incidentally has a much stricter immigration control than many other European countries (much of these is about immigration) and is far away from Northern-Africa.

I see this recent push-back against Stage Green values as an inevitable outcome due to nature of Stage Green. Its too unholistic and impractical to function, which inevitably leads to backlashes from the lower stages which are the majority. Political failure is what will eventually lead to Stage Green to turn into Yellow as they learn that they have to play ball with how the world actually is as opposed to their idealized vision.

Democratically, this right-wing shift is the majority rule. I would rather have a majority rule that burns itself on bad policy and learns the hard way than a minority rule of Stage Green elites that are too out of touch with the day to day issues of normal people, like identity politics and such garbage.

Much of the European right is to the left of the democrats, e.g. the British conservative party. 

There does exist a populist right in Europe but they're still to the left of most Republicans. The Republican party would be seen as an extremist party if it was in Europe.