Joe rogan Interview with Bret Weinstein -> difficult to dissect

[Akemrelax]

Did Bret really needed to bring up "that it may not be a murder" comment?

He makes such dumb statements then wonders how people misunderstood him. He has no communication skills. Typical INTP attachment to ideas and lack of social skills.

[Epikur]

On 29.6.2020 at 4:27 AM, Serotoninluv said:

It won’t matter to those that are not impacted and want the status quo.

Imagine that your finger length was in the lower 5% of the population and by that definition, you are a female. You are now expected to dress like a female and act like a female. You are called a chimeric female, stigmatized and bullied. When you say that you are actually a male and feel just like other men, scientists correct you and say “You are incorrect. Here are the facts about your finger length. You are actually a female”. AS well, people tell you that your experience of being a man is just relative, yet due to your finger length, you must act as a female. Imagine what that experience would be like. It would be awful. That’s what transgender and non-binary people have to go through.

There is a difference between acknowledging someone’s relative experience and excesses. For example, imagine a group of non-binary people say that there are 20,623 variations of binary gender and demand 20,623 new personal pronouns. That is an excess. Yet it doesn’t invalidate the relative identity of non-binary, discrimination against non-binary people and the need for inclusion. There is a difference between saying “Sorry, based on the measurements of your genitalia, you are actually a male and must act like a male”  vs saying “We recognize the relative gender identity of non-binary and the desire for inclusion. It is reasonable to create 1-3 new personal pronouns for better inclusion, yet 20,623 new pronouns is excessive”. 

You seem to be very optimistic. Good luck with that. 

Many countries in the world don't seem to be interested in integrating standard women into the society but you think it's reasonable to just put more challenges on top of it with 1 billion new genders. That does not look very practical but who am I to know that? We will see.
 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

Did Bret really needed to bring up "that it may not be a murder" comment?

He makes such dumb statements then wonders how people misunderstood him. He has no communication skills. Typical INTP attachment to ideas and lack of social skills.

I agree with Bret. Technically, it may not be murder in the classical meaning of that word. Police are given lots of legal leeway in dealing with people who resist arrest.

Of course that doesn't mean it was appropriate or that laws/regulations shouldn't change.

Bret is just being very precise and cautious. Which most people don't want these days. They are outraged and want action. So that's the disconnect here. Both sides have their merit. It's just a matter of what you prioritize higher: precision or action?

But this is why we have courts and why we have the right for peaceful protest. Both play an important function.

[Akemrelax]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I agree with Bret. Technically, it may not be murder in the classical meaning of that word. Police are given lots of legal leeway in dealing with people who resist arrest.

Of course that doesn't mean it was appropriate or that laws/regulations shouldn't change.

Bret is just being very precise and cautious. Which most people don't want these days. They are outraged and want action. So that's the disconnect here. Both sides have their merit. It's just a matter of what you prioritize higher: precision or action?

But this is why we have courts and why we have the right for peaceful protest. Both play an important function.

Yea but it’s just that the way he said makes him sound like he doesn’t think it’s a crime. He could’ve said we have to follow rule of law and due process. Even Joe Rogan seemed a little annoyed. It’s just bad communication skills that’s all I’m sayings.

[Forestluv]

12 hours ago, Epikur said:

Many countries in the world don't seem to be interested in integrating standard women into the society but you think it's reasonable to just put more challenges on top of it with 1 billion new genders. That does not look very practical but who am I to know that? We will see.

I was referring to a specific stage of development. In terms of SD, this would be evolving from Blue/Orange to Green. This transition is feasible in the countries such as the U.S., Canada and several European countries. Yet, countries like Syria and Afghanistan are at a very different developmental stage. Of course inclusion of LGBTQ people is not feasible in countries like Afghanistan. They are at a stage were we can encourage the realization that LGBTQ people should not be killed. They are no where near inclusion. That dynamic won’t arise for many decades.

Yet the situation in countries like the U.S. is very different. This society already realizes that it’s not ok to kill LGBTQ people. This society is at a developmental point in which there is resistance to inclusion and equal rights, yet it is not red/blue resistance, it is blue/orange resistance. That is a very different dynamic.

In the context of a society like the U.S., the argument of “it’s impractical” is Orange-level resistance. Saying that LGBTQ is immoral is Blue and saying LGBTQ inclusion is unreasonable Is Orange. At an Orange level, one would say “LGBTQ inclusion is unreasonable, so let’s keep things as they are (keep excluding LGBTQ)”. Orange has no interest in LGBTQ, unless it serves their own interest. For example, an Orange-level company may realize that they will lose business and profits if they don’t accept LGBTQ.

 A higher green or yellow view would have a very different orientation. They would be able to see that the “1 billion new genders” is a straw man. No one is advocating for 1 billion genders. This is Orange criticizing Green from below. Mature Green and Yellow are not motivated to preserve Blue/Orange level status quo. They are motivated for inclusion. A yelllow level view can see Green excess, yet criticizes from above, not from below. For example, yellow may see a University LGBTQ group’s demand for 30 new personal pronouns to be excessive and impractical. However, yellow is criticizing from above and has a different orientation that Orange. Orange will say “30 new personal pronouns is excessive and impractical!! Let’s keep things the way they are”. A yellow view would be “30 new personal pronouns is excessive and impractical! However, LGBTQ inclusion is important so let’s find a practical means of inclusion. Let’s introduce 2 new personal pronouns.”

[remember]

technically there are different kinds of killing someone, like killing a fly, technically you can slay it or shoot it or maybe if you are very skilled lynch it - technically there are many different ways to justify how the fly was misbehaving and being a problem fly and so on - but you can’t exactly say it died a natural death if it died by your hand. technically speaking as that would mean your hand would be the measurement for nature. which by definition can’t be, as that would mean probably if your finger leangth is a size over average people would trust in what you say even though your finger leangth is bullshitting people about the size of your ego, which is probably not relevant in the discussion about technical legality and non technical legality - if lynching is legal, technically there is probably nothing to say against it. precision is not accurately measurable just by the weapon you use, per definition it’s also measurable by what measurement stick someone uses - ofc if the accountable law is in question you can’t use the law to measure itself, you can only measure the law by the accountability of a person.

Edited June 30, 2020 by remember