Libertarian Cringe

[Leo Gura]

Oh God I love these libertarian videos:

Just goes to show how stuck the mind can get in stage Orange ideologies.

The notion that a human can survive independent of society is a complete fiction. There has never been such a time in 300,000 years of human history. Less developed government means MORE dependence, not less. In tribal cultures humans are totally dependent on the tribe. No one is a lone libertarian wolf there.

Even chimpanzees cannot survive on their own without a tribe.

[remember]

does the blue in green here trigger yellow or red??

where i am somehow from time to time am not sure about is how much the beating of orange in a discussion will make orange grow - it certainly depends on the character of the person.

although it’s certainly a good example of how green is impersonating the shadow orange doesn’t want to see.

Edited January 20, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

I like the point that larger government is beneficial because it can better stand up to corporate corruption.

[StephenK]

The comment that girl made at the end about there being a fundamental disagreement on first principals is an astute observation. This video is just an example of the chaos that emerges when we debate issues 'down stream' from the source.   

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

The Majority Report is good stuff - very entertaining. 

[Bno]

@Juan Cruz Giusto Sam Sedar is also an MSNBC hack.

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

@Bno  From what I can hear, they feel and sound pretty independent and their discussions and guests are very progressive. Interested to see why do you think that? 

 

[Bno]

@Juan Cruz Giusto He kept begging to get his job back with MSNBC, he kept pushing the MSM's conspiracy theory of Russiagate, he didn't catch on to Warren's fakeness until last week when she ostensibly backstabbed him and her record of lying didn't bother him (so, only when it became convenient for his youtube channel), he brought down a WoC progressive Tulsi Gabbard, and he constantly and enviously makes videos trashing Jimmy Dore.

Feel free to listen to him, but just be aware of his strong ties with MSNBC and his capitulation with their corporate narratives.

[Hatfort]

This was so funny!!

This libertarians are a so naive. Of course independence and individualism are great, I love them too, but they don't connect how much collective agreements and regulations, government in one word, are involved so we have the freedom to the extent we do nowadays.

Would be getting into much right now, but at this point what we need are regulations bringing some balance between big corporations and the people. Corporations are so powerful now, they are already lobbying the government all they can for their benefit and they would gladly fill any gap we left in governing. In some point, some decent people will have to get into politics and a good number of voters will have to grow from orange to green to realize they will actually have more freedom with them. We'll have to choose between giving freedom to the corporations or to taking it from them to give it to the people.

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

@Bno  Thanks for clarifying. Any channel or media source you recommend? 

[Bno]

@Juan Cruz Giusto You're welcome! Some people give good suggestions in this thread: 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

@Bno Dude, you have turned your political commentary into a dogmatic gripe. Let it go. The way you comment is not in the spirit of our work here. Free your mind of that shit.

All this political stuff you must hold very loosely, otherwise it turns into just another ideology. The content of your ideology is irrelevant, what matters is that your mind is stuck on it.

Our work here is not to find better content to cling to, but to go meta and become conscious of the relativity of all content held. When you become conscious of this, you stop judging and blaming people.

[Anton Rogachevski]

I didn't really sync with the reporter's attitude. I don't believe this is a healthy attitude to have.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura You don't make this argument when you have people on here who listen to Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, or Ben Shapiro. You let people know about these pundits' low-level consciousness and major fallacies. That's essentially what I'm concerned with here since I've seen you let yourself be misinformed by some of these myopic pundits. I would like you to be the best teacher you can be because I have learned so much from your work, but you do not see a major blindspot that you have.

As I've said multiple times also, everyone has the freedom to choose who to listen to as long as they're aware of the full picture. 

Idk how looking at the full picture instead of ignoring facts is a dogmatic gripe. Especially if we're trying to spread more awareness and increase consciousness. Isn't listening to the wrong sources a limitation to going meta?

Edit: I realized arguing about this won't really help that much. It'll just make us more stubborn. I guess you're going to have to realize it on your own

Edited January 21, 2020 by Bno

[Forestluv]

@Bno Notice rigidity in the mind, black and white thinking and attachment to ideas. This can create a lens that distorts perception. Quite often, there are nuances and partial truths.

For example, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson are a mess when it comes to existentialism. Yet Dawkins has done some very nice work on evolutionary genetics and Peterson has made nice contributions to clinical psychology. It would be best if they stayed within their area of expertise. If they stayed in their areas of expertise (genetics and clinical psychology) they could make great contributions at an Orange level. For example, Dawkins would be great at helping Blue people transitioning from a hyper-moralistic views to rational views. The problem comes when Dawkins and Peterson demonize Green and come off as Yellow/Turquoise wanna be's. 

Ben Shapiro is waaaay down in Blue. Of course he won't carry much weight. If we were living in the 1600s, Shapiro would be highly progressive and help Red to advance to Blue. Yet in the US in 2020, Shapiro is regressive. Could he help red transition to blue? Sure. Yet there isn't that much red in the US and Shapiro doesn't have much value in terms of helping to raise the collective consciousness because he is below the the average consicousness of Orange in the U.S. Shapiro is dragging people down. If we sent Shapiro off to a red-centered middle-eastern culture, Shapiro's value would increase. 

Sam Seder is solid green and two conscious levels higher than Shapiro. Seder is a full conscious level higher than the average Orange in the U.S. Seder's value in raising the collective conscious is much higher that Shapiro's. Is Seder 100% clean of Orange? No. We are all combinations of stages, including me. If you gave me a test for 100% purity of Turquoise, Yellow or Green I would fail. I still have aspects of Orange shadow that pop up. As well, you seem to be attached to a rigid definition of "progressive". There are different expressions of progressive. 

MSNBC is Orange-centered and would carry intermediate value between Shapiro (low) and Seder (high). MSNBC is corporate-dominated, yet they are the average Orange conscious level in the US. That means they can expose a lot of red / blue and pull a lot of people up to Orange. The problem with MSNBC is that they are also pulling Green down to Orange. Look at how they cover Bernie Sanders. Yet that doesn't mean they are 100% evil. For example, Rachel Maddow has done some really nice investigating reporting showing red/blue corruption. She often sweeps Orange level corporate corruption under the rug because her network is Orange level corporate. Yet that does not mean they have no value. They have an important role to play in the evolution of consciousness - yet they are both raising red/blue up and pulling green down. Yet we can't expect MSNBC to regulate themselves, this is where Green comes in.

People like Seder and TYT are solid green progressives and are a full conscious level higher than the average in the US. They are very important for the evolution of consciousness. Yes, they have sprinklings of Orange toxicity, yet there strongest energy is pulling up Orange - by far. They play a critical role. As well, they are not trying to pull down yellow. . . Each green progressive can have certain skills and specialties. For example, Seder is very good at describing the importance of governance from a green perspective. He is very good at revealing the fallacies of Orange libertarianism and corporatism. Other green progressives are more skilled at revealing gender and racial inequalities - others are good at revealing corporate corruption. 

It also seems like you are highly contracted in some very narrow narratives that are distorting perception. For example, you keep coming back to "Russiagate" and judging people on where they stand on "Russiagate" - yet your Russiagate ideology seems hyper contracted and distorted to me. . . Did some democrats overblow the story about Trump's links to Russia? Yes. Did some democrats embelish stories and use them to harm Trump's image for their own gain? Yes. Did this effort backfire? Partially yes. . . However, there is some truth within these stories. Don't hold views so tightly. There is some connection between Trump, his personnel and Putin/Trump that is unhealthy. This isn't a black or white issue that "Russiagate" is a 100% hoax or "Russiagate" is 100% true. This mindset will discredit and dismiss anyone that sees nuggests of truth in the Trump - Russia relationship. In doing so, one may blow off Seder as a "Russiagate" hack and fail to see any insights Seder may have of Trump-Russia as well as non-Russian issues. For example, Seder is very good at explaining the positive roles in government and why we need to expand government, which he did in this video. He also highlighted corporate corruption (such as Amazon) and why we need larger government to stand up to corporate corruption. This is very important for high Orange to hear.  

[remember]

@Bno would also mean on going meta on how people smear each other and not taking part in the small dog fights happening everywhere. in some sense you could take this as a teaching vid. overall there is much to think about in this video in several meta levels. notice for example how the caller gets the whole package. notice how this resembles so much calling some service hotline because they had a bad service and then finally reaching someone and screaming at the woman or man at the other end who was not at all responsible for it, because she’s the representation for the bad service. that’s the part where it’s not really fair. although if the guy is the representant for what he was saying, it was really not very deeply thought through - maybe he was just someone who just started to be interested into politics... the logic and topics and arguments that where brought are in themselves coherent and represent political views, you don’t have to talk about who the moderator supports and what quarrels he had, to see that he is a strong opinionated person - in some sense that’s what makes the show interesting. it’s a kind of politics, not the one you like, but yes it exists, good you might still have the chance to vote for someone who doesn’t use that kind of politics. but be aware that it happens everywhere all the time and really is not actually what is important. there were a lot of interesting perspectives in the show - so better concentrate on the content of the candidates programs if fairness is important for you, stay fair.

mixing up the political fight here with what is happening in another debate might just create more conflict. notice that fairness is a virtue.

Edited January 21, 2020 by remember

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv You make some very valid points. I will come back tomorrow with a response. I have a lot going on career-wise that I want to prepare for atm. Just wanted to let you know so it doesn't seem like I'm disingenuously ignoring your well thought out response.

[Leo Gura]

@Bno Notice your attachment to this issue.

My point is not about politics. It's about the attachments you're exhibiting. You are missing the point of what I said to you, because you're stuck on matters of content.

I let people know about pundits' fallacies in a non-attached way, conscious of the relativity of my perspective. That is the crucial difference. You are on here pushing an agenda every week. It's a question of attachment vs detachment for your own perspective.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura Yea, this was the wrong time and place for me to mention it. I have to figure out how to articulate my thoughts without seeming attached.

[Raptorsin7]

@Bno How happy are you with your current lifestyle of following and being involved in politics?

Is it love, joy, bliss? What are your pre-dominant emotions and feelings?