Is non binary the epitome of stage green?

[Thetruthseeker]

The whole non binary argument is really kicking off in the UK recently ,(again) feels likes it’s on the news every day 

like this clip, 

so is this piers (stage orange) conflicting with the younger man Benjamin (stage green) 

if so, I may have some work to do, because piers resonates more with me on this one 

 

[electroBeam]

The point of non-binary is its a nice, effective social mechanism for removing bullying and trauma around people who are struggling to identify their gender. This is an extremely positive movement with huge potential to decrease the suffering in the world.

And Piers is being in compassionate about the issue. But at the same time, he shouldn't be forced to be fired. And of course this little social trick can be exploited and his points on that are valid. Its just he's not seeing the value of such a system. 

[Zizzero]

Imagine the level of ego to really think that you not liking someone's views is a reason for them to lose their job. 

Especially when your beliefs are as philosophically weak of a position as the non-binary lunacy.

 

If feminism is what you perceive as the epitome of green, then you don't understand what green is.

[electroBeam]

4 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Imagine the level of ego to really think that you not liking someone's views is a reason for them to lose their job. 

No you don't get it.

Green people like that opponent in the video actually perceive what piers is doing as evil violence. Piers is literally making fun of people who are in a state of uncertainty with their gender, which is very damaging to that person. Its perceived in the same way you perceive someone as being bashed or punched because someone has a weird body type or is fat. And being forced to be fired is just a way of stopping the evil suffering inflicted on non binary people. 

[Zizzero]

5 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

Green people like that opponent in the video actually perceive what piers is doing as evil violence.

Yeah, and they are wrong. And wanting to make someone lose his job because you feel entitled because you feel like a victim is no justification for the damage you are creating.

7 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

Piers is literally making fun of people who are in a state of uncertainty with their gender

Then change the channel when you don't like what they're saying. You don't have a right not to be offended. And that's coming from someone who knows what it's like to be bullied for something you have no control over. You can ignore someone's words, but you can't ignore losing your job.

10 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

And being forced to be fired is just a way of stopping the evil suffering inflicted on non binary people. 

Everyone will be confronted with all sorts of perspectives they wont like. Building a giant echo chamber is no solution to end suffering. No one goes around beating up non binary people because they heard a joke.

[electroBeam]

8 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Yeah, and they are wrong. And wanting to make someone lose his job because you feel entitled because you feel like a victim is no justification for the damage you are creating.

That's your opinion, not fact.

9 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Then change the channel when you don't like what they're saying. You don't have a right not to be offended. And that's coming from someone who knows what it's like to be bullied for something you have no control over. You can ignore someone's words, but you can't ignore losing your job.

There is already a deep stigma against non binary people in English culture, and this has severe mental traumatic effects. Pier is on a channel with the power to influence the behaviours thousands if not millions of people, and instead of taking the issue seriously, he's significantly perpetuating the problem, making non binary individuals even more distressed. This is deeply irresponsible and taking him off television isn't such a far fetched idea. He shouldn't be taken off air yet, but the government at least should step in and give the television channel a warning. 

14 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

No one goes around beating up non binary people because they heard a joke.

Some people do beat up non binary people, and that is due to individuals of influence normalising stigmatisation against non binary people. Be even if they don't, many cause passive aggressive emotional abuse to non binary people for the same reasons. Indirectly Piers is fuelling unacceptable and damaging behaviour to some groups in Britain.  

[Zizzero]

@electroBeam I've seen people making jokes on this forum about Trump, Trump supporters, libertarians, materialists, atheists and stage orange people. If I go and beat up the next person I see with a MAGA-hat, would you support the ban of actualized.org? I mean there is a stigma on Trump supporters. Indirectly, Leo is fuelling unacceptable and damaging behavior to some groups in the world. That is so irresponsible from him. Also, should Nicki Minaj be banned from the radio because her fans cyber bully Cardi B?

See how ridiculous that is? Piers is not responsible for the actions of others and should not be held accountable for them. Especially not for jokes.

 

Also, I'd really love to see how you would explain how hearing a joke by Piers Morgan leads to an individual making the decision to beat up non binary people. Is there like a threshold that when you heard 174 jokes you draw the logical conclusion that violence is necessary?

 

There is a point in time when everyone - even a non-binary person - needs to realize that they're not the center of the universe and aren't entitled to only hear points of view that they agree with. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zizzero

[Scholar]

28 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

@electroBeam I've seen people making jokes on this forum about Trump, Trump supporters, libertarians, materialists, atheists and stage orange people. If I go and beat up the next person I see with a MAGA-hat, would you support the ban of actualized.org? I mean there is a stigma on Trump supporters. Indirectly, Leo is fuelling unacceptable and damaging behavior to some groups in the world. That is so irresponsible from him. Also, should Nicki Minaj be banned from the radio because her fans cyber bully Cardi B?

See how ridiculous that is? Piers is not responsible for the actions of others and should not be held accountable for them. Especially not for jokes.

 

Also, I'd really love to see how you would explain how hearing a joke by Piers Morgan leads to an individual making the decision to beat up non binary people. Is there like a threshold that when you heard 174 jokes you draw the logical conclusion that violence is necessary?

 

There is a point in time when everyone - even a non-binary person - needs to realize that they're not the center of the universe and aren't entitled to only hear points of view that they agree with. 

 

Do you not think there is a meaningful difference between making jokes about majority groups, that are currently in power like Trump voters, and making jokes about minorities which are actively discriminated against? Do you think the stigma around these groups effects them equally the same?

What about if Piers was a Nazi and making jokes about jews. Should he be fired? Where do you draw the line? Do you think someone who is acting on national TV has a different responsibility in what they say and do than someone working at McDonalds?

 

Piers should be fired because he is a moron, that guy is an embarrassment for the UK.

 

[Ry4n]

Piers is totally right on this one; it does make a mockery of the immense commitment of transitioning for a trans person and even though it's fine to identify however you want, projecting rather ludicrous expectations onto the rest of the world to remember your unique pronouns that could very well be different the very next day is just mentally insane. It just couldn't ever happen. Literal hundreds of genders? That don't stay?

If that's how you feel fine, but how could someone else keep up with it all? It looks more a kin to some sort of personality disorder in my eyes. If there were some sort of universally excepted pronoun for it that we could all agree on than it's possible, but if they demand we learn a whole new language that is impossible to keep up with JUST so we don't get fired from our jobs for being "bigots" than regardless of how you feel on the subject, NONE of this would come into fruition. 

[Hansu]

1 hour ago, Zizzero said:

Then change the channel when you don't like what they're saying. You don't have a right not to be offended. And that's coming from someone who knows what it's like to be bullied for something you have no control over. You can ignore someone's words, but you can't ignore losing your job.

You are correct in your own perspective, but you need to understand that your perspective is not someone elses perspective. What is logical for one person is not logical for another. You have been bullied, just like I have been bullied, and you have learned to not give a fuck about bullies, just like I have learned to not give a fuck about bullies, but our perspective is not the absolut true perspective.

Just because there are individuals who have the ability to not break down due to bullying but even to grow does not mean that we shouldnt stop bullying from happening in the first place. Personally I feel like I have achieved a lot despite my background, but almost everyone else I know was bullied in school have grown up to be so called "losers" with no future plans, bad financial status and to whom even smallest daily problems become immense. Meanwhile the popular kids have grown out to be high officers in the army, have gone to colleges and achieved so much more than the average bullied kid.

Step out of your own perspective and try to see the world in the perspective of others.

Ps: Im not saying that trans activism hasn't gone overboard, but at least I can try to understand why it is so deep and important for some people that it has come to this point.

[Zizzero]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Do you not think there is a meaningful difference between making jokes about majority groups, that are currently in power like Trump voters, and making jokes about minorities which are actively discriminated against? Do you think the stigma around these groups effects them equally the same?

If you accept @electroBeam 's premise that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group, then you'd be against all types of ridicule. And especially when we're talking about Trump; tell me a group where making fun of them is more socially accepted than him and his supporters. Making fun of LGBTQ+ people is considered highly politically incorrect, viciously insulting Trump and his supporters is socially accepted (at least in the public conversation and where I live). And in fact, Trump supporters get attacked regularly on the streets of the US by far-left activists like Antifa. I perceive violence against Trump supporters as being more socially accepted than violence against LGBTQ+ folks.

“To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire

And if your point was merely that it's ok to make fun of those in power then how about we pick a different example that I named; is it ok for people on this forum to mock libertarians? They are not in power. actualized.org should be censored!

 

One cannot argue for the right to be a dick towards others while being appalled when the rock gets thrown back at him. If you believe that you have the right to make fun of others, then stop playing the victim is what I'd suggest.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

What about if Piers was a Nazi and making jokes about jews. Should he be fired? Where do you draw the line? Do you think someone who is acting on national TV has a different responsibility in what they say and do than someone working at McDonalds?

I am pro free speech. And I'm not entitled to decide whom other people hire. As I wrote i a previous post; Piers is not responsible for other people's actions. I don't like Piers Morgan, so I don't watch his show. It's that simple.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zizzero

[Zizzero]

49 minutes ago, Hansu said:

Just because there are individuals who have the ability to not break down due to bullying but even to grow does not mean that we shouldnt stop bullying from happening in the first place.

Obviously. I'm not advocating for bullying. That would be like advocating for murder or poverty; who does that?

This appears to me like a question where we have to be careful not to be sucked into fantasy land where everyone is kind to everyone.
You, like me, like every other human being ever will be confronted with people who don't like us, with mockery, insults, bullying etc. Everyone experiences that to a certain degree. 

What is being debated in this thread is this: I believe that being a victim of bad treatment does not entitle you to limit someone else's freedom. I strongly oppose the axiom that's currently being held by a large percentage of society and advocated by the political left that victimhood is a virtue that should be rewarded with power. I believe that under all circumstances freedom of speech must be chosen over the right not be offended and we're not helping people when we create incentives for them to feel like victims.

You're coming from a compassionate place. But I don't think we're helping victims of bullying by pretending that perspectives they disagree with don't exist.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zizzero

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

If you accept @electroBeam 's premise that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group, then you'd be against all types of ridicule. And especially when we're talking about Trump; tell me a group where making fun of them is more socially accepted than him and his supporters. Making fun of LGBTQ+ people is considered highly politically incorrect, viciously insulting Trump and his supporters is socially accepted (at least in the public conversation and where I live). And in fact, Trump supporters get attacked regularly on the streets of the US by far-left activists like Antifa. I perceive violence against Trump supporters as being more socially accepted than violence against LGBTQ+ folks.

“To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire

And if your point was merely that it's ok to make fun of those in power then how about we pick a different example that I named; is it for people on this forum to mock libertarians? They are not in power. actualized.org should be censored!

Libertarians are not an opressed group, and being libertarians is not as fundamentally a part of ones identity as for example your sexual orientation, migration background or skin color is. You cannot just choose to change your history or skin color.

 

It is not the ridicule of Trump supporters which leads to the hatred of Trump supporters among Antifa and the like. It's not like Trump supportes are a neutral group of people. They have an impact on their environment and their decisions have a very real impact on other people, like for example minority groups, the environment in general and so forth. It is not fair at all to compare a political orientation with something like a sexual orientation and race.

I do not think it is wrong to make fun of liberals as much as it is to make fun of Trump supporters. Politicitcal disagreement is not the same as societal discrimination.

 

Additionally, not all violence is unjustified. For example, to have prevented the rise of the Nazi's by ridiculing them and subsequently leading to violence towards that group would have been totally fine by me if it did prevent them from getting in a position of power. Politics is not neutral. If there is a group which threatens by it's political choices the way of life of others in a very significant way, like deportation or holocaust, then stigmatization and violence is a perfectly justifiable means to counteract these movements.

 

You do not recognize that speech leads to very real consequences that definitely end in violence and the like. Of course it is not easy to quantify, but to completely ignore it is lacking all nuance. While we should not necessarily create legal culpability for certain speech, I certainly think we can create moral culpability for speech.

 

Another example is actively engaging in politics which leads to the deaths of thousands of people overseas. Currently the population, which continously elects people who perpetuate wars in other countries, have no responsibility whatsoever for their political choices. They can continue to elect people who support the military-industrial complex or even fund terrorists in other countries, or better yet invade entire country against their will, with no consequences whatsoever. That is completely insane. People are dying for these complacencies. Again, politics is not neutral, being gay, black or whatever else definitely is.

 

[Zizzero]

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Libertarians are not an opressed group, and being libertarians is not as fundamentally a part of ones identity as for example your sexual orientation, migration background or skin color is. You cannot just choose to change your history or skin color.

LGBTQ+ people are not oppressed either; we're talking UK, not Saudi Arabia. And no, you cannot choose your political views either. Could you be a Trump supporter? I don't think you can. 

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It is not the ridicule of Trump supporters which leads to the hatred of Trump supporters among Antifa and the like. It's not like Trump supportes are a neutral group of people. They have an impact on their environment and their decisions have a very real impact on other people, like for example minority groups, the environment in general and so forth. It is not fair at all to compare a political orientation with something like a sexual orientation and race.

What you're doing here, I think feminists call it "victim blaming"

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I do not think it is wrong to make fun of liberals as much as it is to make fun of Trump supporters. Politicitcal disagreement is not the same as societal discrimination.

 

Additionally, not all violence is unjustified. For example, to have prevented the rise of the Nazi's by ridiculing them and subsequently leading to violence towards that group would have been totally fine by me if it did prevent them from getting in a position of power. Politics is not neutral. If there is a group which threatens by it's political choices the way of life of others in a very significant way, like deportation or holocaust, then stigmatization and violence is a perfectly justifiable means to counteract these movements.

If you accept the premise "that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group" which I believe you do, then I don't quite know how to follow you here.

Either you say that violence against Trump supporters is justified in which case I'd call you a piece of shit and end this conversation here with you because I believe our worldviews are too different in that case to find any common-ground and therefore nothing of substance can result from our banter here.
If you say that violence against Trump supporters is not justified, then every stance other than "we also shouldn't make fun of Trump supporters as it can lead to violence towards them." is a contradiction from your part.

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I certainly think we can create moral culpability for speech.

Exactly. You can dislike and disagree with other's speech as much as you want. If you think that Piers Morgan should suffer consequences for his speech, then use your power as free citizen in a free country with a (more or less) free market to punish him for his actions. That's exactly what I'm advocating for!

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zizzero

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

LGBTQ+ people are not oppressed either; we're talking UK, not Saudi Arabia. And no, you cannot choose your political views either. Could you be a Trump supporter? I don't think you can. 

What you're doing here, I think feminists call it "victim blaming"

If you accept the premise "that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group" which I believe you do, then I don't quite know how to follow you here.

Either you say that violence against Trump supporters is justified in which case I'd call you a piece of shit and end this conversation here with you because I believe our worldviews are too different in that case to find any common-ground and therefore nothing of substance can result from our banter here.
If you say that violence against Trump supporters is not justified, then every stance other than "we also shouldn't make fun of Trump supporters as it can lead to violence towards them." is a contradiction from your part.

Exactly. You can dislike and disagree with other's speech as much as you want. If you think that Piers Morgan should suffer consequences for his speech, then use your power as free citizen in a free country with a (more or less) free market to punish him for his actions. That's exactly what I'm advocating for!

You show no charity towards anything I wrote. What is the point of me responding to you if you are not even going to attempt to comprehend what I am writing? I think I was very clear, yet you omitted most of my points completely.

I guess the orange is gonna orange. Forgo all nuance for ideology.

 

[Zizzero]

@Scholar Well how about you phrase your position more precisely then? Instead of insulting me

[Scholar]

48 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

@Scholar Well how about you phrase your position more precisely then? Instead of insulting me

Why would I? To help you evolve as a human being? I have enough evolving to do myself. If you are interested in the other side of the argument you can find enough on the internet. I am not a day-care. I have given you enough which did not help you whatsoever.

[Forestluv]

@Zizzero You are missing understanding and embodiment of relativity. This begins at stage Green and deepens into yellow. You only understand/embody your perspective and your relative experience and are making Orange level logical/analytical arguments. 

LGBTQ and non-binary are marginalized and face prejudice - yet you don't see this due to being contracted into a single personal perspective that excludes relativity integration. If you had a life history of being LGBTQ, you would have a very different perspective. Yet you cannot imagine this. Part of this involves empathic knowing, which starts at stage green. (Empathic knowing is distinct from compassion or sympathy). 

In addition to relativity, your argument also filters out power dynamics between minority marginalized/ostracized groups and majority privileged groups. This would reveal the false equivalencies of comparing the mocking of a Trump supporter to the mocking of LGBTQ.  However, realizing this would mean letting go of attachment/identification to a contracted personal perspective. Orange-level logical arguments protecting that limited perspective will keep a mind contracted. You can remain contracted or you can expand. The choice is yours. No one here can make you do it. 

[Key Elements]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

You do not recognize that speech leads to very real consequences that definitely end in violence and the like. Of course it is not easy to quantify, but to completely ignore it is lacking all nuance. 

Excellent point. Powerful, persuasive speeches led to WWII as well as MLK's speech that led to more rights for minorities. Reminds me of this quote, "the pen is mightier than the sword." It's so easy for an ego to fall prey to some unconscious info on the internet and react to it in unconscious ways without going down the rabbit hole. It's so much easier to go out and behave in unconscious ways as a result. Ask yourself, "what is the best way for you to do your part to raise ppl's consciousness?" Yes, your life purpose is nuanced and powerful if you transform it that way. It has impact everywhere, including this topic. You can't really tell ppl what they can and cannot do, if your info is in tier 2. You don't know them. So, you can't tell ppl how to use their strengths, if they're even aware of their strengths. It's not monkey see and monkey do. Negatives (news and info) are easy to sell for the short term, just like a bag of potato chips.

[electroBeam]

9 hours ago, Zizzero said:

If you accept @electroBeam 's premise that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group, then you'd be against all types of ridicule. And especially when we're talking about Trump; tell me a group where making fun of them is more socially accepted than him and his supporters.

Well its nice to think about Trump vs non binary people relative terms: non binary people can't be ridiculed so therefore Trump can't be ridiculed, but this isn't the way to lead a healthy society. Sorry some cultures, opinions and ways of life ARE better than others, and they are not all relatively the same. The latter is a diplomatic side step to excuse your precious values and beliefs. The fact is, non binary people are not hurting as many people - trump is. Trump is not comparable to non binary people, Trump is literally more evil than binary people and that's the way it is. And if you disagree, its not because everyone's opinion is valid, its because you CHOOSE to not see what damage he is doing out of fear of loosing some toxic attachments you have. 

Violence shouldn't be imposed on Trump, that's not leading to any resolution but making matters worse, but ridiculing him IS different to ridiculing non binary people - and its crazy that this has to be outlined. Just like how ridiculing a white male in the 1700s IS different to ridiculing a black slave.