Stage arguments

[electroBeam]

Why is it that the same stage are more hostile while arguing than different stages are?

Blue vs Blue is more hostile than blue vs green?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/28/hannity_explodes_on_muslim_cleric_defending_islamic_state.html

 

[Annoynymous]

@electroBeam i haven't seen this video fully, but amazed to look at Tucker. When Cornel west was talking, he kinda give a creepy and surprised look. It seemed like hatred coming out like a flood from him.

[Apparition of Jack]

Well, it depends on context. Just because say, a Chinese nationalist and an American nationalist are both blue, that obviously doesn't mean they'll see eye-to-eye, lol. Content is important, not just structure.

[Annoynymous]

I don't understand another thing. Tucker seemed like an attacker and disrespectful toward west while having him on his show. It didn't look civil. In fact it was quite ugly when he dismissed one of west's point as "silly". Even the caption Fox news was showing seemed biased. I do not think this as an ideal way to conduct an interview. Tucker was more interested in dismissing than listening to Cornel's point. 

 

[Apparition of Jack]

@Annoynymous That's because that's what the interviews are designed to do. Fox News interviews are not good faith discussions between two people with differing ideas, they're "the host" (who is supposed to be a stand-in for the audience / the audience's beliefs) inviting different "crazy" guests on to make fun of and to reaffirm their own ideological supremacy over the guest / guest's beliefs. Of course this only works if you agree with Fox New's ideology in the first place, so if you're more developed than that the host, in this case Tucker Carlson, you will recognise that they're being dismissive and rude.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Annoynymous]

@Apparition of Jack@Apparition of Jack 

25 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Well, it depends on context. Just because say, a Chinese nationalist and an American nationalist are both blue, that obviously doesn't mean they'll see eye-to-eye, lol. Content is important, not just structure.

I think you can tell a lot more by seeing the expression and non verbal cues. Those didn't feel right.

 

21 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

@Annoynymous That's because that's what the interviews are designed to do. Fox News interviews are not good faith discussions between two people with differing ideas, they're "the host" (who is supposed to be a stand-in for the audience / the audience's beliefs) inviting different "crazy" guests on to make fun of and to reaffirm their own ideological supremacy over the guest / guest's beliefs. Of course this only works if you agree with Fox New's ideology in the first place, so if you're more developed than that the host, in this case Tucker Carlson, you will recognise that they're being dismissive and rude.

I see. In that case, this is obviously biased and the show is formatted such a way that it would act like an authority over the truth and dismiss other opinion as bullshit. 

What about other channels? Are they also biased as Fox news?

Ironically, even though i consider myself as liberal, i find channels like TYT and the humanist report biased in their presentation as well. They are not mainstream channel though. Sometimes i like what they are saying but also many times i felt they are taking things too far. 

[Apparition of Jack]

1 minute ago, Annoynymous said:

@Apparition of Jack@Apparition of Jack 

I see. In that case, this is obviously biased and the show is formatted such a way that it would act like an authority over the truth and dismiss other opinion as bullshit. 

What about other channels? Are they also biased as Fox news?

Ironically, even though i consider myself as liberal, i find channels like TYT and the humanist report biased in their presentation as well. They are not mainstream channel though. Sometimes i like what they are saying but also many times i felt they are taking things too far. 

All news sources are biased to some degree, this is an inescapabe fact due to the nature of language. You're right that even higher-consciousness news sources like TYT / The Humanist Report fall into the trap of self-bias and ideology, it's just the difference in ideology is one of stage Blue conservatism (Fox News) and stage Green progressivism (TYT/THR). The point is though to be as aware of ideology as possible and to move beyond it.

If you want to be truly objective about news, you'll have to expose yourself to a number of different sources and always keep a critical mind about the information being presented (along with how it's being presented) and come to your own own conclusions. Learning epistemology and how bias works can be helpful in this too.

[electroBeam]

39 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

I don't understand another thing. Tucker seemed like an attacker and disrespectful toward west while having him on his show. It didn't look civil. In fact it was quite ugly when he dismissed one of west's point as "silly". Even the caption Fox news was showing seemed biased. I do not think this as an ideal way to conduct an interview. Tucker was more interested in dismissing than listening to Cornel's point. 

 

That's his style. It's why his audience listens to him. He acts a certain way to get clicks and fit in the fox news box. 

[Annoynymous]

34 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

That's his style. It's why his audience listens to him. He acts a certain way to get clicks and fit in the fox news box. 

He seemed like a stupid to me. I would be very annoyed if i were Cornel West. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Annoynymous

[Annoynymous]

@Apparition of Jack

37 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

All news sources are biased to some degree, this is an inescapabe fact due to the nature of language. You're right that even higher-consciousness news sources like TYT / The Humanist Report fall into the trap of self-bias and ideology, it's just the difference in ideology is one of stage Blue conservatism (Fox News) and stage Green progressivism (TYT/THR). The point is though to be as aware of ideology as possible and to move beyond it.

If you want to be truly objective about news, you'll have to expose yourself to a number of different sources and always keep a critical mind about the information being presented (along with how it's being presented) and come to your own own conclusions. Learning epistemology and how bias works can be helpful in this too.

I appreciate your point of view. But don't you thing try to be "objective" is also another trap? I see many centrist people falling into this trap. Isn't it obvious that human beings are gonna take side no matter what? When there is survival involved, everybody gets involved.

[Leo Gura]

Because Blue is dogmatic on the basis on content, and content is endless.

For example, if you get dogmatic about one langauge being superior to all others, you automatically create hundreds of enemies. And if everyone does the same, everyone has hundreds of enemies.

But higher stages rise above that by valuing diveristy, inclusiveness, and relativity.

Higher stages are capable of loving down while lower stages are incapable of loving up, or even sideways. That's what makes the higher stages higher. They are capable of loving more difference.

[Forestluv]

Imo, Tucker was relatively respectful and has a certain respect for Cornell West. Tucker is immersed in a particular narrative and is motivated to protect and promote his narrative. It is a similar dynamic with Richard Dawkins and a science narrative. It is a very debate style posture. Tucker's posture was to protect his opinion and get a "win" over what he perceived to be Cornell's position. Tucker's motivation was not to learn, integrate or develop his understanding. 

A few things I found interesting in the context of SD theory:

-- Tucker was very intent on defining "democratic socialism". When he started, he briefly mentioned their are different views. Yet this was just an window dressing. He clearly wanted to define "Democratic Socialism" as Venezuelan-style state ownership and control. In his interview with Cornell, he kept coming back to this definition and tried to pigeon hole Cornell. For example Tucker essentially asks "As a democratic socialist, you believe in open borders. How is that helpful?". . . Cornell spent some time trying to deconstruct the framing of the question before he could even answer it. 

-- Before Cornell entered, Tucker spent 3 minutes defining "Democratic Socialism" to set the narrative. His first question to Cornell was to give an example how Venezuelan-style socialism is successful. To his credit, Cornell did not take they bait. He stated there are various forms of socialism with good and bad aspects - yet the essence of democratic socialism is to ensure the dignity of regular people  that they can live lives of decency. I was a bit surprised that Tucker agreed with the value of this. In doing so, the interview was recontextualized. Tucker still had his narrative, yet all subsequent questions were essentially "How could (xyz) achieve this goal? (to ensure human dignity and a decent life)". E.g. How can open borders ensure decent lives?". 

-- Tucker just cannot understand nuances and different perspectives - which is typical for stage Blue/Orange - in particular when exposed to Green-level nuances and perspectives. For example, several times Cornell tried to explain that there are various views and aspects of socialism with different degrees of benefit and harm. There is now a movement to utilize certain aspects of socialism - that hasn't been tried before. Tucker looked completely baffled by even the simplest of nuances and would respond with things like "yea but, how would open borders help?". 

Overall, I think it is a net-positive to have these types of interviews on Fox. Tucker introduced Cornell as the pre-eminent scholar on democratic socialism - bestowing him with authority. Then Cornell kept correcting Tucker's view. I think a small percentage of Fox viewers would subconsciously resonate with some of what Cornell is trying to say about human dignity and having a decent life. One of the problem for Tucker is that he cannot bait Cornell into an "us vs. them" divisive conflict because Cornell is oriented toward being inclusive. Cornell's "us" is all regular people deserving of dignity and a decent life.  

[Bodigger]

@Serotoninluv Do you think that Tucker and Cornell could be sharing the same achievement thoughts, and differ on the path to the ultimate goal of the subject?

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

@Serotoninluv Do you think that Tucker and Cornell could be sharing the same achievement thoughts, and differ on the path to the ultimate goal of the subject?

I see it as a spectrum. In terms of genuinely wanting to lift up poor and working class people to have dignified, decent lives. . . I would put Tucker above Hannity/Limbaugh and below Bernie/Cornell. 

[Apparition of Jack]

18 hours ago, Annoynymous said:

@Apparition of Jack

I appreciate your point of view. But don't you thing try to be "objective" is also another trap? I see many centrist people falling into this trap. Isn't it obvious that human beings are gonna take side no matter what? When there is survival involved, everybody gets involved.

I'm using the term "objective" here rather loosely, since as we all know everything is ultimately relative. I just mean in the sense of taking the biggest-picture, most conscious stance that takes into account as many factors as possible in any one given moment of space and time.

For instance, an "objective" stance on the climate issue would be that CO^2 emissions do indeed create a greenhouse effect which in turn slowly heats up the planet over time. This position has been arrived at through an understanding the context of human pollution, the nature of Earth's ecosystems, how data is measured and the motivations of climate scientists taking down the data, and so on.
Obviously such a statement isn't taking into account the fact that the physical world is just a manifestation of Infinite Imagination, or that the words describing this process are inherently limited and dualistic nature and so can be misinterpreted or fail to provide a complete picture and so fourth, but for the purposes of understanding where humanity is at, in our current relative geopolitical climate, it's useful to use this relative terminology. We can't be engaging in deep epistemology when discussing every political and social issue we face, essentially.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Raw Nature]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because Blue is dogmatic on the basis on content, and content is endless.

For example, if you get dogmatic about one langauge being superior to all others, you automatically create hundreds of enemies. And if everyone does the same, everyone has hundreds of enemies.

But higher stages rise above that by valuing diveristy, inclusiveness, and relativity.

Higher stages are capable of loving down while lower stages are incapable of loving up, or even sideways. That's what makes the higher stages higher. They are capable of loving more difference.

@Leo Gura

I really disagree with that, like imagine if everyone other than you were retarded, you'd have the closest approximation to reality compared to anyone else, your version of reality would thus be more truthful to the facts than others. 

Diversity in this situation is only two scenarios (1) wrongful chaos + wrongful chaos (2) comparatively much more ordered chaos (your perceptions of reality)

Reality has A language, otherwise we'd all be living in unique realities relative to our diversity. 

Imagine if reality was just the internet, the only thing diverse about us is really just our IP address along with superficial layers beyond that. The internet though has to run on A network not unicorn internet, one run by Jesus or even one that's linked to Trumos brain regardless as to how sophisticated it must be.

Sure you can "love all the way down", but you can't think "up" applications for reality if your language for processing with reality is unaligned with the actual language of reality.

Our cognition is A language, the only reason it works is because that language aligns with the language of reality to some extent, but people have numerous glitches the more retardation they have in their brain, so they're not equally valid or loving because even if there's the feeling of love many have destructive consequences because their (at least some) IP addresses re-route to some drug cartel in Venezuela where they're preparing for the next import to the US from the Mexican border inevitably leading to the deaths of many naive younglings (and perhaps the ecstasy of more experienced users who receive a "good batch").

This inclusiveness of running multiple languages on a processor, aka reality, that only recognises one is thus inherently flawed and is thus down the hierarchy rather than up.

Your videos reflect a hierarchy of ideas, you select features in your cognition that are better or worse than in your perception, so the very act of your selection and it's criteria is what reality does with thoughts we have that either align or unalign. Inclusiveness is the exact opposite that reality does, it only excludes anything that does not conform to its language. 

Reality must love everything for anything that exists in reality is reality itself, but reality does not agree with everything equally in lieu of the fact that we have things that outcompete others.

So reality is a dual inclusionary and exclusionary force and this needs to be comprehended better and better as people move up otherwise they'll just stagnate if they don't accept this balance.

Reality is simultaneously the most dogmatic and loving thing we can imagine, so we have no choice but to conform to its language whether it's stage blue or not.

[Raw Nature]

@Leo Gura

In a nutshell, reality CAN'T be plugged into water, coal or fire it had to be plugged into an electrical socket and only an electrical socket in order for reality to turn on or for it to even exist at all.

No matter how many political identity groups are created that petition otherwise, whether it's the petition that women can do it better, transsexuals should be allowed to plug reality into their genitals for it to work or political leaders want to use alternative possibilities as a means of campaigning for presidency, they're wrong.

They're wrong and they have to not only be told that but forcibly stopped if they can't learn that this is how reality functions otherwise reality will cease to be or cease to ever exist at all.

We have to look at, record and prove that reality can and does only function by plugging it into an electrical socket and then protect that knowledge from outside threats.

Not all opinions are created equal in the eyes of reality even if they can all be equally loved by reality once it's plugged in correctly.

Reality simply won't stand it, my radio, computer and phone simply won't stand me trying to plug it into ice cream or anything else other than an electrical socket (or equivalent).

I'm out in the rain right now so I better move otherwise my iPad will stop working, it's functional reality will plug right out of existence.

[Forestluv]

@Raw Nature When a sophisticated house of cards collapses, it's epic.