Trump Impeachment

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

 

@Serotoninluv I used to be very liberal and as I get older and do more research I find myself moving to the right.  I don't think I was really liberal, just misinformed.  Now, does this mean I am going from a big tree to a sapling?  LOL

According to consciousness models, that would be very rare. For example, bimodal thinking would be considered a lower level than continuum thinking. Once a person understands continuum thinking, they don't reject that and regress back to pure bimodal thinking. For example, someone might believe that all people are either good or bad. This is bimodal. They may evolve and realize that a person can have good aspects and bad aspects. Once a person realizes this, they very rarely regress. 

Similarly, liberal/progressive would be at a higher conscious level than conservative. I think by liberal, you might be referring to a high Orange form of liberalism, rather than a Green progressive level. . . Is it possible for a person to evolve to Orange politically and then regress back down to Blue? I would say yes, but with caveats. There are several different lines of development and a person is a mixture of various levels - we say they are "centered" at one level. So a person can have aspects of Orange along one line of development, such as cognitive - yet be Blue centered emotionally and have Blue shadow issues. As well, it is possible to regress if one did not fully transcend/embody a level and is inundated in a lower level. For example, someone might have developed aspects of Orange at a surface level, yet regress because there were actually underlying Blue values and they live in a Blue-centered environment and watch blue-level FoxNews.  

For example, someone might buy an electric car. This may seem like a progressive thing to do. Yet it depends on the underlying value. If someone buys an electric car because it was marked down 40% or to be popular with their peers, that is Orange. If someone buys an electric car because it is a natural expression of their connection and concern for the environment - that is Green. 

35 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Would we have similar statements if Trump was a Democrat and the five page document read the same?

Progressives were very critical of Obama during the Edward Snowden whistle-blowing. Much more so than Trump supporters are critical of Trump. Green has a higher level of critical thinking than Blue. As well, Green will have a lower level of identification than Blue to a political person. Yet this doesn't mean  there is no identification. It is just less. For example, Trump supporters tolerate lies and corruption from their candidates than Green. For the current standing of Blue, it is more about identity, bimodal culture constructs and "owning the libs". Green gets much more upset when their candidates lie and show corruption. 

 

[Robi Steel]

@Serotoninluv Hey friend. I think you might have a "bimodal" problem when thinking about the political spectrum. 

How is change always better? How is progressive always better? What if youre going in the wrong direction? What if youre changing too fast so the whole foundation falls apart? What if youre going just too fast in an egotistical, self-righteous way.? Conservatives can sense when important traditions and rulesets and hierarchies are being thrown out of the window with the consequence of social instability. 

I wouldn't even consider myself right-wing in any way. I just dont want to be associated with these know-it-all liberals who never showed respect to a conservative once in their life. Really? ALL conservatives part the world in good and evil people? Thats all what theyre being boils down to eh? Had one to many spiral dynamics videos? 

Its actually not all that simple and convenient for your worldview as you think you know. Right-wing people are also people, they have absolutely reasonable concerns. They can see things that a hot-headed middle-class liberal does not see. 

I have a lot of conservative values because I care a lot about the stuff that we need to preserve. The backbone of our whole society rests on tradition and what we have learned from previous generations. The stability of our systems relies on such ancient stories and development. There is ALWAYS a chance to cast away too much of a secure base and completely undermine the functioning of the whole system. A naive and overblown progression ends in a society which core has been ripped out and has lost its center (like america).

 

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Robi Steel

[whoareyou]

@Robi Steel For that reason the middle ground is the sweet spot. Balance is the key - you need both

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Robi Steel said:

@Serotoninluv Hey friend. I think you might have a "bimodal" problem when thinking about the political spectrum. 

How is change always better? How is progressive always better? What if youre going in the wrong direction? What if youre changing too fast so the whole foundation falls apart? What if youre going just too fast in an egotistical, self-righteous way.? Conservatives can sense when important traditions and rulesets and hierarchies are being thrown out of the window with the consequence of social instability. 

I wouldn't even consider myself right-wing in any way. I just dont want to be associated with these know-it-all liberals who never showed respect to a conservative once in their life. Really? ALL conservatives part the world in good and evil people? Thats all what theyre being boils down to eh? Had one to many spiral dynamics videos? 

Its actually not all that simple and convenient for your worldview as you think you know. Right-wing people are also people, they have absolutely reasonable concerns. They can see things that a hot-headed middle-class liberal does not see. 

I have a lot of conservative values because I care a lot about the stuff that we need to preserve. The backbone of our whole society rests on tradition and what we have learned from previous generations. The stability of our systems relies on such ancient stories and development. There is ALWAYS a chance to cast away too much of a secure base and completely undermine the functioning of the whole system. A naive and overblown progression ends in a society which core has been ripped out and has lost its center (like america).

 

You do realize that this is the same argument that gets trotted out no matter what the change is, right?

Ask a person back in the antebellum South if they think chattel slavery should be abolished, and they'll trot out this same argument that traditions need to be preserved. 

So, on its own, this is not a good justification for keeping around old corrupt systems... especially when new and better ones are already being proposed.

And that's really what it boils down to. The norm is to take the status quo for granted and even long for a past status quo as a reactionary. 

And whenever, 1% of the time, someone comes around and tries to change it to something better... those with a conservative lean try to pretend they're being the adults in the room by appealing to tradition and the veneer of pragmatism. And they'll clutch pearls about those changes "destabilizing society" and "corrupting the youth". But what really underlies this pearl clutching most of the time, is fear of loss of power and fear of change.

The fact of the matter is that most things remain the same most of the time. Things aren't changing at a very rapid pace at all. It's always small changes that lead to a better future. But conservatives don't like these small changes because they see them as big. And that's because, to them, the changes are emotionally big and threaten their worldviews and cherished power structures (that are usually stacked in favor of whomever tends to lean conservative).

So, when progress and change comes, it's already rare enough. So, the conservatives can give up some of their comfort for a little progress toward a more evolved society based around the needs of all instead of the desires of the few.

Honestly, in America, over the past 30 years the Overton Window in the government has been shifting further and further right to the point where "liberal" politicians are really just center right while "conservative" politicians are far right. So, our government is a lame bird with two right wings.

It's about time we had some change. It's not best to pick the status quo all the time, especially when so much is riding on our ability to change into a society that works for all people and for the planet as well.

 

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

@Robi Steel For that reason the middle ground is the sweet spot. Balance is the key - you need both

The middle ground is for those seeking to preserve the status quo, including all the unfairness and corruption of the status quo.

And those seeking to preserve the status quo are conservative by definition.

Where do you think the "conserve" in conservative comes from?

Don't fall for the middle ground fallacy. Centrism is no virtue. All it means is that you are in alignment with the views of most of the people in your particular society. And you happen to fall in the middle of the two most common extremes. And usually, it means that you are under-educated and people-pleasing with your views trying to capitulate to the norms of your society and the opinion of the majority.

Either way, the middle ground is always defined relativistically, just as Conservatism and Progressivism are. So, it depends on what society you live in at what era in time, that determines where the middle ground actually is. And most people are like fish in water, and just take their experiences as the norm without question... and that's true no matter how obvious the corruption is to an outsider.

In Nazi Germany, the middle ground was Nazi-ism. Was that the sweet spot? Furthermore, you were an extreme radical if you were anti-Nazi.

In the old USSR, the middle ground was Communism and gulags. Was that the sweet spot? And yes, you'd be a radical if you were against the Communists.

The only reason why you think that the middle ground is a sweet spot is because you define normal in relation to your society. And that's because you're indoctrinated to believe your society is normal and that your worldview is correct. And you miss the corruptions that need to be called out. And when progressives come and try to make positive change, you go "What about the middle ground? Everyone's getting too radical." 

 

 

[RichardY]

Conservatism is total Garbage. It's about monopolising natural resources and the apparatus of the state, to externalise costs.

I'd prefer Whigism. But they lost any major political force, when they dissolved into the Abolitionist movement in the USA pre-civil war and were replaced by The Republican Party. And in the UK post WW1 when women received suffrage, and their voting base was large killed. They did dominate in the Victorian era as the Whigs & Liberal Party, and under George II.

If any President is that bad, there should be pistol duels, by members of the Senate, at least. Any judiciary can be co-opted by powers, both foreign and domestic.

[Forestluv]

@Emerald Thank you for your comments. Good stuff.  

 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

@Serotoninluv Hey friend. I think you might have a "bimodal" problem when thinking about the political spectrum. 

Conservatives generally have a binary mode of thinking, such as left vs. right. Us vs. them. Saving the life of an unborn vs. killing an unborn. Guns legal vs. Guns illegal. . . This are all very simple binary constructs. In general, conservatives are not into nuances. When I communicate with conservatives in this frame of mind, this is their mode of operandi - so I need to speak this language. My conversations with progressives are very different, because they are very comfortable using spectrums and relativity. 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

How is change always better? How is progressive always better?

And this is a great example of what I am referring to. Framing it such that change is always better is a binary construct. Of course change is not always better. It depends on the change. Changing laws to pollute air and water would not be better for most people. As well, the term "better" is relative. Of course change will not be better to conservatives. Freeing slaves was not better for slave owners. 

In general, progressive ideas are relatively better - yet they won't be perceived as better by everyone. For example, progressive believe in inclusion and equality for LGBTQ. Many conservatives don't like this and don't see it as better. They see LGBTQ as immoral, weird or against god's will. They are correct from their relative perspective. However this is a limited perspective. When a person expands to understand other people's relative perspective and experience, they understand how LGBTQ inclusion and equality is relatively better. Yet this isn't something that a conservative will be able to see. They would need to develop things like rational thinking and empathy. 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

What if youre going in the wrong direction? 

The key to understand various perspectives - intellectually, emotionally and through direct experience. For example if you asked me "How do you know that LGBTQ acceptance is the right direction?". I could give a logical explanation, yet it is much deeper than that. There are aspects of direct experience, empathy and intuition that are involved. 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

What if youre changing too fast so the whole foundation falls apart? 

Conservatives want no change, moderates want incremental change and progressives want rapid change. Yet there could come a point in which highly rapid change becomes counter-productive. However, the problem is when this argument is used to obstruct and try to maintain "traditions" and "hierarchies". Ahhh looksie, just like you do next. . . 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

Conservatives can sense when important traditions and rulesets and hierarchies are being thrown out of the window with the consequence of social instability. 

This argument of "preserving traditions" has been used by conservatives through history against any social change. For example, "preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage". This argument was used to obstruct inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage. If we allow blacks and whites to marry and *gasp* have children there will be social instability. If we allows gay people to raise children there will be social instability!!! If we allow women to leave the kitchen and enter the workforce, there will be social instability!! The list goes on and on and on. . .  Conservatives are on the wrong side of history time and time again. 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

I just dont want to be associated with these know-it-all liberals who never showed respect to a conservative once in their life.

Don't let that inhibit your personal development and growth. You are painting liberals with a broad stroke. 

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

I just dont want to be associated with these know-it-all liberals who never showed respect to a conservative once in their life. Really? ALL conservatives part the world in good and evil people?

I think you make a good point in that Orange and Green can be condescending to Blue. However, sometimes this seems unavoidable. For example, I've had conversations with conservatives that see gender as being either male or female. . . masculine or feminine. When I try to explain gender and sexual orientation spectrums, I've been accused of being a "know-it-all" and showing them no respect for their views. . . It's like someone believing men or either tall or short and explaining that their is a spectrum of height that ranges from short to tall and then getting accused of being a "know-it-all" that doesn't respect their view. Sometimes conservatives are such snowflakes. . . 

It is the general orientation for conservatives to perceive in binary constructs. If you compare Trump rallies/FoxNews to TYT/Majority report, it is completely obvious that conservatives are more oriented toward black and white thinking. Progressives are much more nuanced.

2 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

Right-wing people are also people, they have absolutely reasonable concerns.

I think there is a good point in here. Progressives can at times stigmatize right-wing people and I think they could do a better job at allowing space for growth. For example, right-wing nationalists or men with masculinity issues. At times, I don't think it's best to shame them as racists or toxic masculinity. There are underlying issues of concerns. For example, gender roles have changed a lot over the last generation and a lot of men are confused about what it means to be a man these days - this can bring up a lot of insecurity and a sense of not belonging. This can be amplified if they are called "toxic men". As well, some white men see a decline in their place in society with diversity and immigration. It can be feel like they are losing their culture, causing a sense of powerlessness and fear. In some contexts, I don't think it's best label them as bad people destroying society. At times, we need to allow safe space for such men to explore their underlying issues and grow. For example, Obama had social programs for white nationalists - these were safe spaces for white nationalists to work through their issues with people that understood (former white nationalists and people trained in this area). 

 

[whoareyou]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

The middle ground is for those seeking to preserve the status quo, including all the unfairness and corruption of the status quo.

And those seeking to preserve the status quo are conservative by definition.

Where do you think the "conserve" in conservative comes from?

Don't fall for the middle ground fallacy. Centrism is no virtue. All it means is that you are in alignment with the views of most of the people in your particular society. And you happen to fall in the middle of the two most common extremes. And usually, it means that you are under-educated and people-pleasing with your views trying to capitulate to the norms of your society and the opinion of the majority.

Either way, the middle ground is always defined relativistically, just as Conservatism and Progressivism are. So, it depends on what society you live in at what era in time, that determines where the middle ground actually is. And most people are like fish in water, and just take their experiences as the norm without question... and that's true no matter how obvious the corruption is to an outsider.

In Nazi Germany, the middle ground was Nazi-ism. Was that the sweet spot? Furthermore, you were an extreme radical if you were anti-Nazi.

In the old USSR, the middle ground was Communism and gulags. Was that the sweet spot? And yes, you'd be a radical if you were against the Communists.

The only reason why you think that the middle ground is a sweet spot is because you define normal in relation to your society. And that's because you're indoctrinated to believe your society is normal and that your worldview is correct. And you miss the corruptions that need to be called out. And when progressives come and try to make positive change, you go "What about the middle ground? Everyone's getting too radical." 

 

 

That is NOT what I mean by "middle ground".  I meant that you need a non-biased, balanced approach. An approach that is not identity based (liberal/progressive/conservative/left/right,centrist/etc).

Your worldview is a bit delusional, because you believe that radical always means more conscious. Radical =/ more conscious.

You need a balanced approach. Balanced approach requires you to see all the angles and to take many factors into account. 

Balance is the key to pretty much everything in life, not just in politics.

You are bringing Nazi Germany as an example here because it fits your narrative. You can find other examples where the opposite is the key.

The more conscious I became, the more I realized that both sides have things that I genuinely agree with. If more people came to this understanding - there would be less fighting/demonization of each other, and instead more unity, and in turn a better society for all.

Edited October 1, 2019 by whoareyou

[Leo Gura]

Balance IS the key. But balance is not taking the mid-point of any given two positions.

Balance can be radical at times.

For example, if you're considering slavery vs no slavery, the balanced position is not half-slavery, it is no slavery. The balanced position required a Civil War.

The trick is being able to recognize the Civil War as an act of balance. Most people would be too myopic to see it as such.

For example, the balanced position with regards to Trump is to put him on trial and send him to jail for any crimes he committed. Of course no Trump supporter would consider that balanced or fair. Yet that is the truth of it. The problem is that self-bias warps one's sense of balance, fairness, and truth.

In truth nobody cares about balance or fairness or truth, they care about survival at any costs.

From the ego's POV, "balance" is whatever serves the ego. But that isn't true balance, that's devilry.

Which is why Fox News used to call itself "Fair and Balanced"

It's classic Orwellian devilry. They are precisely not fair and balanced which is why they seek to call themselves such. That's self-deception 101. Which is why Trump likes to call himself "a stable genius". Precisely because he isn't.

An actual stable genius has no need to go around telling people he is a stable genius.

[whoareyou]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Balance IS the key. But balance is not taking the mid-point of any given two positions.

Balance can be radical at times.

For example, if you're considering slavery vs no slavery, the balanced position is not half-slavery, it is no slavery. The balanced position required a Civil War.

Balance at times can be radical, but radical does not always mean that it is balanced.

I agree with you about slavery, but that again is just one individual example. My point was far deeper than that, of course I did not mean to take a mid-point of any given two positions.

Balance is your entire approach on a long term scale, not just individual situations.

If you are balanced, in some cases you may take a very "radical" solution, and at other times favor a more "conservative" seeming one. Yet your approach is free of political identity.

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by whoareyou

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Balance at times can be radical, but radical does not always mean that it is balanced.

I agree with you about slavery, but that again is just one individual example. My point was far deeper than that, of course I did not mean to take a mid-point of any given two positions.

Balance is your entire approach on a long term scale, not just individual situations.

If you are balanced, in some cases you may take a very "radical" solution, and at other times favor a more "conservative" seeming one. Yet your approach is free of political identity.

That's exactly what I said.

Now the question is, how does your philosophy actually look like when applied to real-world problems like healthcare, corporate lobbying, environmental regulation, taxation, immigration, foreign policy, economic policy, gun control, abortion, etc.?

Are you gonna be on the right side of history on those issues?

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, whoareyou said:

That is NOT what I mean by "middle ground".  I meant that you need a non-biased, balanced approach. An approach that is not identity based (liberal/progressive/conservative/left/right,centrist/etc).

Your worldview is a bit delusional, because you believe that radical always means more conscious. Radical =/ more conscious.

You need a balanced approach. Balanced approach requires you to see all the angles and to take many factors into account. 

Balance is the key to pretty much everything in life, not just in politics.

You are bringing Nazi Germany as an example here because it fits your narrative. You can find other examples where the opposite is the key.

The more conscious I became, the more I realized that both sides have things that I genuinely agree with. If more people came to this understanding - there would be less fighting/demonization of each other, and instead more unity, and in turn a better society for all.

Radical is not always more conscious. I could say that I believe society would be better if everyone rode on top of elephants instead of in cars to reduce carbon emission and that would certainly be radical... but definitely not more conscious.

But let's be clear, though NOT everything more radical is more conscious, EVERYTHING that's more conscious IS more radical by its very nature. And if it weren't seen as radical, we'd already be doing them. It would be part of the new middle ground. We need to change the structure if we want to grow and evolve. And Centrism won't cut it. The middle ground just ensures the status quo continues and nothing gets shook up.

And I also agree that we need to take all angles into account. That's precisely why I hold the views of society and politics that I do. If you actually consider the real world effect of politics and don't see politics as its own little bubble, you'll see that the "middle ground" has a lot of imbalances in it.

So ironically, to be balanced, you need to change society to something more balanced... which will be seen as radical.

You shouldn't define balance by "How much in the middle am I on the political spectrum compared to others in my society?" You should define balance in terms of, "What policies and worldviews should I support to help create a sense of balance and fairness in society?"

And most of the most poignant balance-creating policies that would help us evolve into a less corrupt society are NOT to be found in the middle ground. Most of them are on the avant garde of mainstream society's political development (aka progressive).

But furthermore, if you are a Centrist and take the "middle ground", it usually just means that you've only considered your impression of both political extremes and arbitrarily drew a mid-point in between both of those relative extremes. You haven't fundamentally done the work of venturing out into the real-world consequences of this "middle ground" thinking, and usually Centrists don't even have a clear idea of partisan groups that they've arbitrarily wedged themselves in the center of.

They just go, "Hey, I think everyone should get along. So, I'm going to just support both groups because that's the nicest thing to do that creates the least amount of conflict in my life. It's more comfortable and it makes me less likely to be accused of extremism. Also, I don't need to educate myself at all, I just tout the virtues of being oh so balanced and tolerant and accepting." And that's how they decide upon their political and social views. 

Also, if you understand that the "middle ground" is a relative term defined by the current state of society and politics, and that so are the terms Progressive and Conservative... then you'll understand that Centrists are just as guilty of partisanship as someone who identifies as (liberal/progressive/conservative/left/right, etc.)

Also, I gave two forms of what our society deems extremism in my last example... right (Nazi-ism) and left (Communism ala Stalin). I chose extreme left wing and right wing examples of societies where the "middle ground" is extreme in our view and the "extremes" are moderate in our view. But I can give plenty more...

• In some tribal societies, it was a "middle ground" practice to kill twins upon birth because the phenomenon was ascribed to a demon doppleganger of the original twin being birthed into society. It was extremism to even suggest there were ethical issues with this. 
• In ancient Greece, when a woman was raped it was the "middle ground" that she was responsible for the rape as sexual impropriety on her part and she was expected to commit suicide immediately afterward to save her honor. And it was extremism for a woman to suggest she wasn't the one responsible for her rape or to stay alive.
• In our society, it's the "middle ground" that there is vast income inequality where the top three wealthiest people in America own more than the bottom 50% of people.
• In our society, it's the "middle ground" that big corporations buy favor with the government to stack the deck in favor of their interests and against the interests of the average person. 
• In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" that public schools are funded off of property taxes, which leads to the wealthiest children having the best public schools and the poorest children having the worst public schools that struggle with funding and over-crowded classes. And it also guarantees a kind of de facto segregation where there are still poor mostly black schools and richer mostly white schools. 
• In our society, it's the "middle ground" the people who work 40 hours per week are making poverty wages, where they can't even afford to live. And it's also the "middle ground" that the minimum wage hasn't changed in a close to a decade, despite the fact that the cost of living has increased as well as the level of productivity.
• In our society, (if you're American) it's the "middle ground" for people to go bankrupt due to medical debt and it's also the "middle ground" for 30k to 40k Americans die per year due to lack of insurance, under-insurance, rationing care, and not being able to afford prescriptions.

So, this gives you just a little hint of the tyrannies of the "middle ground". So, if these are the "middle ground", we need to be "extreme" in order to change to a society that's more balanced and fair for ALL people. We have the capacity to do it. And if we do it, it will become the NEW middle ground eventually.

And while capitulating to the center and the "middle ground", probably creates more harmony and balance in your life as a Centrist via getting along with everyone you're talking politics with in the center left and center right and not "fighting/demonizing" eachother within that 'oh so civil' conversation... you're not fundamentally considering how much imbalance these "middle ground" views are contributing to. 

So, actually be balanced. Actually consider things from ALL angles. Actually have a viewpoint that's based on more than just arbitrarily drawing the mid-point between the most common polarities within your particular society. Open your eyes to the actual real-world effects of your political opinions.

 

[Robi Steel]

Guys, I get the feeling that some people on here do have good intentions but are not really edging on the points about the balance of politics that some of us really want to bring home. I hear your points and they are all technically correct but I always feel like you guys havent seen that certain window from which our current political situation could be viewed from. A view that doesnt favor left or right from the get-go, that values the left and the right immensely 

I dont have some regressive blue element that is pulling me down to the conclusion that our society should not undermine traditional families as much as it is doing.I have looked at the data, I have looked at the people, I have looked at my direct experience, I let all the perspectives intertwine, And so I came to a conservative conclusion. 

How does the situation look right now, not in abstraction. Im looking at the people who run things at the moment. How they behave, what do they say. Who seems to glimmer this spiritual, divine energy in their speech, behavior and actions? Who examines greater depth and seems to actually know what they are doing? (im not saying trump is that btw, not at all)
 

Then who is it? Its not the people who favor the right, its not the people who favor the left, its the people who look beyond that to the highest degree. Who integrate both forces. Can I be super honest on this forum? 

Some of your answers felt oddly predictable. I inhabit that paradigm too that you are talking about. Its great. I get what youre saying. Its not like your concepts are wrong. but these concepts can be used in really subtle ways to justify an unbalanced picture and to stress the less relevant talking points to avoid others. Maybe Im fooled, totally possible. Maybe there is some really sneaky twisting and subtle ignorance in your argumentation that you dont notice because you are afraid of embracing the right. fully embracing it. loving it. isnt that what this is all about? loving trump? 

Feel that honestly first before judging so many people easily away into insignificance. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Robi Steel

[Bodigger]

18 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 For example, someone might buy an electric car. This may seem like a progressive thing to do. Yet it depends on the underlying value. If someone buys an electric car because it was marked down 40% or to be popular with their peers, that is Orange. If someone buys an electric car because it is a natural expression of their connection and concern for the environment - that is Green. 

This is funny because I wouldn't buy an electric car due to the amount of electricity which comes from coal plants in my area which is about 50%.  In other words, I won't buy a coal powered car.  I give my friends who own electric cars crap about this in a joking manner of course.  This puts me where on the SD?

Balance:  Complacency and Radicalism are the enemies IMO.  History has shown us this many times when a nation falls.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Bodigger
Spelling

[Apparition of Jack]

29 minutes ago, Robi Steel said:

How does the situation look right now, not in abstraction. Im looking at the people who run things at the moment. How they behave, what do they say. Who seems to glimmer this spiritual, divine energy in their speech, behavior and actions? Who examines greater depth and seems to actually know what they are doing? (im not saying trump is that btw, not at all)

Honestly? IMO, it's Bernie and his movement. Remember, harnessing the spiritual aspect of life doesn't mean you come across as charismatic or likeabe (it can mean that, but you have to be careful you're not being deceived by ego too.) It means you're in touch with what's really going on around you, you're able to see greater trends, and not only that, but you're able to harness them, regardless of what the world around you is saying.

The current problems in the US are complex and many-layered, and it takes guts to peer at them head-on and be prepared to make the changes needed to face them. Trump and the GOP aren't willing to do either -  in fact they're more or less digging their heads in the sands and deny they even exist. Bernie and his progressive movement are the opposite however - they see the structural problems and they are willing to take them on. No one is saying it will be easy, but then nothing in life that's worth doing ever is. If you're worried about traditional values being upended, then you really shouldn't be - communities retain tighter bonds and have more cohesive support networks when their material needs are met, which is something that Bernie is willing to do (unlike the Republicans, who aren't meeting America's needs at all.)

Also keep in mind that harnessing truth and wisdom will always be met with backlashes, especially when the powers of society gain their authority by denying these very things. Bernie might appear "too controversial", "too aggressive", and so on, but this is only because there are too many powerful people who rely on lies and deceit who are threatened by his swinging of the truth-sword.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Apparition of Jack

[Apparition of Jack]

23 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

This is funny because I wouldn't buy an electric car due to the amount of electricity which comes from coal plants in my area which is about 50%.  In other words, I won't buy a coal powered car.  I give my friends who own electric cars crap about this in a joking matter of course.  This puts me where on the SD?

Balance:  Complacency and Radicalism are the enemies IMO.  History has shown us this many times when a nation falls.

Radicalism was needed to abolish slavery. Ending slavery didn't destroy the US, it saved it from internal rebellion and stagnation. The US would be 50 years behind where it is today if the Civil War had never been fought.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Apparition of Jack

[tenta]

Trump broke the law, so he should be impeached even tho it probably won't happen, Joe Biden doesn't have a good chance of beating trump and he's leading in the polls so impeachment is kind of needed

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Balance IS the key. But balance is not taking the mid-point of any given two positions.

I like the discussion regarding balance, centrist and mid-point. In particular, I've been contemplating the concept of high conscious balance. Below are some of my explorations. . . 

The U.S. recently went through 20 years of debating same-sex marriage. The conservative position was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to prohibit same-sex marriage within the "defense of marriage act". The progressive position was "Love is love" and same-sex marriage should be legal. The centrist/mid-point position was that marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual, yet homosexuals can have "domestic partnerships" in which they are given many of the rights marriage grants - such as being able to visit a severely ill partner in a hospital.

This centrist position seems to have the illusion of "balance" since it is the midpoint. Similar to how a scale is balanced by a midpoint and each side has equal weight. This is the traditional sense of "balance" and I like how the concept is being explored and recontextualized on the forum. . . So what might a conscious balance look like in this situation? As I create this construct, I would say that balance would include looking at various perspectives as well as various modes of being. We could consider perspectives of conservatives, progressives, straight, gay, psychologists, religious, scientists from different modes of being including intellectual/logical, empathetic, relativity etc. For example, from a relative experience homosexuality might seem unnatural to conservative, yet completely natural to a homosexual. From a logical perspective homosexuality naturally occurs in all animal species examined. So we could say that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena and the relative experience is natural to those that are homosexual - this would shift the *balance* toward legalizing same-sex marriage. Another argument presented by conservatives was that children in LGBTQ families are raised in an unhealthy environment and will have developmental problems, while progressives argued that their is no difference regarding child welfare between traditional and LGBTQ homes. Many social science studies supported the progressive claim. A centrist may find the mid-point and say "There is not an extreme difference between the childrearing, there is only a moderate difference and only a moderate negative impact on children in LGBTQ homes". Yet the midpoint between the two arguments is not accurate. So once again *balance* shifts toward allowing same-sex marriage.

Once it's fully explored, the balanced position would be legalizing same-sex marriage. Yet I think a balanced position would also have empathy and understanding for conservatives that feel very uncomfortable with homosexuality. There are some extreme conservatives that are highly motivated to portray homosexuality as evil and allow discrimination. However, there are also a lot of conservatives that were conditioned that way, perhaps through church and social groups. Homosexuality may feel weird to them. They may have never met or gotten to know a person in the LGBTQ community. Rather than stigmatizing all conservatives as stupid homophobes, a balanced position would allow space for someone to explore their own biases. I realize not everyone would be open and willing in this regard, yet many are and a balanced position recognizes this. Someone might be open enough to say "I think homosexuality is wrong. It feels weird and unnatural to me. Yet I'm not sure why." Rather than stigmatize the person as a "homophobe", a balanced position would allow exploration and growth. It would have a more empathetic understanding of the person. Rather than pointedly calling out them as homophobic devils and shaming, we might discuss conditioning within cultures as well as our own personal experience (I was raised in a traditional catholic environment and know this conditioning). We might introduce the person to someone in the LGBTQ community. A person may open a door by saying that they are straight, yet are occasionally attracted to the same-sex. This all allows space. . .  Yet a balanced position would still be balanced - it would understand that not all conservatives would be open to exploring this and growing. Some will consciously try to resist personal and social growth: they will deflect, obstruct and oppress. From a balanced view, this would be a different context and response. For example, it may be best to call out their homophobic devilry and at times shame them for it. They might not be willing to introspect it, yet by calling out their homophobic devilry it can increase collective awareness and reduce the social impact of their deflection, obstruction and oppression. 

I think this may be a "higher" level of balance, we may evolve toward. An actual example of the balance between the two categories would be Trump's relationship with Mexicans and Warren's relationship with Native Americans. I would place Warren in the first category. Warren identified as Native American and described herself as Native American for many years - this may have benefited her during her academic and political careers. She also took a DNA test and reduced Native American heritage to DNA sequences. We find out she is not Native American. Warren seemed open to learning and growing. Rather than labeling such people as an immoral opportunist, I think she should be given a space to learn/grow. I saw a recent talk of hers and she said that after the DNA test, she went in to Native American tribes to learn and understand their perspectives. She said she now knows that what she did was wrong, why it was wrong and why it caused harm. This is growth. And she is now educating people about her new insights. She was raised in an environment in which she was told she had Native American heritage and she assumed she did. Yet she now knows she is not a person of color. Importantly, she goes one step further and educates why DNA tests to not determine heritage and identity. I think this can help a lot of people. I was also raised in a family in which we thought my great-grandfather was Native American. For a while, I identified as being part Native American. About 10 years ago, my mom got a DNA test and it showed I had about 1 drop of Native American blood . I also looked into constructs of cultural identity and spoke to several Native Americans. I realized I'm not Native American. . . at all. . . . I think offering safe spaces for this growth is important. If I faced social stigmatization and shaming as a liar and immoral opportunist, I don't think I would avoided exploring this and I wouldn't have expanded in this area. . . In contrast, I would say Trump's portrayal of Mexicans has dangerous murderers and rapists is a different category and a balanced position is aware of this and balances the position. Trump is not open to see how is rhetoric is racist and damaging toward his targets and to society. He has conscious intention and is aware of impact. Trump is not open to introspection, learning as growing as Warren of myself was. So a balanced approach would be to take a strong position and call out the behavior as racist devilry. This won't help Trump at a personal growth level, yet it can reduce the social harm and increase social awareness for those that are open.  

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, tenta said:

Trump broke the law, so he should be impeached even tho it probably won't happen.

My bigger concern is the extent that Trump is concealing his wrongdoings. Every presidency has wrongdoings and attempts to conceal it. Yet Trump is at a more dangerous level of wrongdoing and concealment. I think this hyper-concealment is just as important as the wrongdoings. I would say the concealment issue may be even more important because it destroys the fundamental foundation of democracy. Democratic elections are a fundamental expression of consent. The public gives their consent for a person to lead the country. Yet consent is based on information. If wrongdoings and nefarious intentions are concealed, the public cannot give consent. . . This is a fundamental issue of ethics. For example, clinical trials in medicine ethically requires consent of volunteers, yet if researchers conceal information, such life-threatening risks of the drug, the volunteers cannot consent. The pharmaceutical company may claim consent and say "look!! They signed on the dotted line!!". Yet it would not be considered consent in ethical and legal contexts. 

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

The current problems in the US are complex and many-layered, and it takes guts to peer at them head-on and be prepared to make the changes needed to face them. Trump and the GOP aren't willing to do either -  in fact they're more or less digging their heads in the sands and deny they even exist. Bernie and his progressive movement are the opposite however - they see the structural problems and they are willing to take them on.

This is very general.....can you be more specific

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Radicalism was needed to abolish slavery. Ending slavery didn't destroy the US, it saved it from internal rebellion and stagnation. The US would be 50 years behind where it is today if the Civil War had never been fought.

The act of abolishing slavery was not radical.  This was done by constitutional ballot and over a period of time.  The civil war was a radical movement started by the opposition after this amendment to the constitution.  We see this happening today in this country because people don't like the process.........or the results.  @Leo Gura is correct, if you don't like it, get off your ass and get involved.