Level of consciousness of Antifa and BLM?

[Nyseto]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

?‍♂️ 

You give very little weight to those treated injustly and place a huge amount of weight to cherry-picking instances to distract from the underlying injustices. 

Imagine that you knew someone was kidnapped and being tortured. There is a group trying to help that person and you keep distracting them by pointing out people that have slipped on ice. From the perspective of the one who is suffering, it’s a crappy thing to do.

But you're giving being irresponsible/ignorant a slap on the wrist. If you poke a bear long enough, what will happen? If this is about growing in consciousness then personal accountability can't be swept under the rug.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Scholar]

Just now, Nyseto said:

But you do know that when you're pointing your finger at me, you have three pointing back at you right? You are stuck on the invalidating part as the ultimate truth and not seeing both sides. 

There is such a thing in life as suffering and death due to ignorance as well. If you're going to be as ignorant as walking into a police station with a weapon to protest thinking that the world revolves around you, you'd be surprised.

We are not talking about my ignorance right now, but yours my brother. You have clearly displayed your insensitivity here, it would be obvious to any sensitive creature. As we speak you are talking from fear. You are defending yourself, because you lack an open heart.

 

This will not change if you simply continue to life from fear. You will see, if your heart grows stronger and more loving, it's focus will change. This is a natural evolution of the heart in relation to the mind. I feel like I am talking past you my brother because all you can see is fear.

[Nyseto]

11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

We are not talking about my ignorance right now, but yours my brother. You have clearly displayed your insensitivity here, it would be obvious to any sensitive creature. As we speak you are talking from fear. You are defending yourself, because you lack an open heart.

 

This will not change if you simply continue to life from fear. You will see, if your heart grows stronger and more loving, it's focus will change. This is a natural evolution of the heart in relation to the mind. I feel like I am talking past you my brother because all you can see is fear.

"We are not talking about my ignorance now, but yours my brother." If that's not defending yourself, then I don't know what is. I've made my point and you continue to dodge it out of fear of looking at it. You are talking so much about fear yet I think you're afraid to look at your ignorance. I have looked at both sides in that scenario the way those people protested with U-locks around their necks. I want them to protest, but not like that. That is seeing both sides. I have nothing against their cause, it's just how they're doing it. 

And at the end of the day, what good is your protesting if done so unconsciously that you end up arrested, in the hospital, etc.? 

You can't be conscious if you're only sensitive or insensitive.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

"We are not talking about my ignorance now, but yours my brother." If that's not defending yourself, then I don't know what is. I've made my point and you continue to dodge it out of fear of looking at it.. You are talking so much about fear yet I think you're afraid to look at your ignorance. I have looked at both sides in that scenario the way those people protested with U-locks around their necks. I want them to protest, but not like that. That is seeing both sides. I have nothing against their cause, it's just how they're doing it. 

Let us try a little experiment my brother. Your heart cannot be reached in the current state you are in. Leave this thread for a while until you do not feel attached to it anymore. Then, when you feel especially loving and open hearted, like you wanted to give your brothers and sisters love, come back here and read again our conversation.

I think it could be enlightening.

[Nyseto]

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Let us try a little experiment my brother. Your heart cannot be reached in the current state you are in. Leave this thread for a while until you do not feel attached to it anymore. Then, when you feel especially loving and open hearted, like you wanted to give your brothers and sisters love, come back here and read again our conversation.

I think it could be enlightening.

You're high horsing as the guy being "loving". If you can't see that, I'm sorry my brother. I love you and hope you find your way as well

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

But you're giving being irresponsible/ignorant a slap on the wrist. If you poke a bear long enough, what will happen? If this is about growing in consciousness then personal accountability can't be swept under the rug.

Being irresponsible/ignorant is a relative construct. Be aware of underlying assumptions of an external, objective, normative beliefs of “irresponsible/ignorant”. 

And you seem to be placing an enormous amount of emphasis on cherry picked incidents of personal responsibility at the expense of those being harmed both individually and socially. It’s like defending an abusive alcoholic father by saying, “don’t poke the bear or you deserve the consequences of his wrath”. 

In terms of SD models of consciousness, it is a mixture of blue and Orange. The bear not to poke is an authoritarian leader, father or god and should not be poked. Orange is the value of taking personal responsibility. It some contexts, personal responsibility has value - yet if we myopically view personal responsibility, it is a hyper simplistic naive view. For example, it would blame poor people and drug addicts as being “irresponsible”. This is true in one context, yet is hyper simplistic and doesn’t factor in social and systemic inputs. In terms of SD, yellow is about integrative systems - not myopically focusing on specific points with a bi art mindset.

[Nyseto]

11 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Being irresponsible/ignorant is a relative construct. Be aware of underlying assumptions of an external, objective, normative beliefs of “irresponsible/ignorant”. 

And you seem to be placing an enormous amount of emphasis on cherry picked incidents of personal responsibility at the expense of those being harmed both individually and socially. It’s like defending an abusive alcoholic father by saying, “don’t poke the bear or you deserve the consequences of his wrath”. 

In terms of SD models of consciousness, it is a mixture of blue and Orange. The bear not to poke is an authoritarian leader, father or god and should not be poked. Orange is the value of taking personal responsibility. It some contexts, personal responsibility has value - yet if we myopically view personal responsibility, it is a hyper simplistic naive view. For example, it would blame poor people and drug addicts as being “irresponsible”. This is true in one context, yet is hyper simplistic and doesn’t factor in social and systemic inputs. In terms of SD, yellow is about integrative systems - not myopically focusing on specific points with a bi art mindset.

With all due respect. It kind of sounds like you're rationalizing personal accountability as being insignificant. Poking the bear is a metaphor for when you're being so selfish to the point that life turns around and knocks you back. Actually it's yourself knocking you back. It doesn't have to be an authoritative figure. "You reap what you sow." 

There are situations where personal accountability doesn't apply like being a legitimate victim of a crime. I can totally acknowledge that. There are people out there getting victimized, injured etc. My heart goes out to them. But there are also situations where a lack of personal accountability was the problem more. 

Here is an issue where lack of personal accountability is at work more. These people are protesting climate change by standing on ice in Germany. Imagine little kids walking by seeing that. The protesters are being insensitive to the the public. I'm not trying to demonize them because I hate them, I am being truthful. There is nothing but compassion for their mental health 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Nyseto said:

Yes I think something similar is necessary. Everything in life comes with a consequence. What matters is if you can accept it fully. I guess I'll know how to help fix America's racial inequalities one day when I become president. 

I think youre kind of dismissing this question and it is very important for your topic. Youve highlighted criticisms of blm which is cool, but then you have to look at what was the purpose of your criticism? You agreed there would be a need for something like blm but youre not happy with the current movement, so what would you do differently or how would you address the current disparities of race or at least the discontent people feel?

If you cant answer these questions i dont think you should really criticise as you cant come up with a better or even a different solution yourself. Otherwise the end point of your criticism is just blm is bad

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

You're high horsing as the guy being "loving". If you can't see that, I'm sorry my brother. I love you and hope you find your way as well

I hope you do well too!

[Nyseto]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

I think youre kind of dismissing this question and it is very important for your topic. Youve highlighted criticisms of blm which is cool, but then you have to look at what was the purpose of your criticism? You agreed there would be a need for something like blm but youre not happy with the current movement, so what would you do differently or how would you address the current disparities of race or at least the discontent people feel?

If you cant answer these questions i dont think you should really criticise as you cant come up with a better or even a different solution yourself. Otherwise the end point of your criticism is just blm is bad

I wouldn't go looting, burning, or vandalizing. The idea to doing all those things comes from the fear that you won't be heard. It's not so much about what TO do, but what NOT to do. Martin Luther King always called for peaceful protesting and it worked eventually. To this day he is revered, he was a man of high consciousness. That's my answer. It doesn't have to have a list of policies, be complex, etc.

Also, I'd focus a lot more on the positive too. BLM overlooks the positive often. They don't acknowledge how successful African Americans have become, how America is a great place to be for opportunity unlike other countries. A sense of gratitude would change the way they go about their cause.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

I wouldn't go looting, burning, or vandalizing. The idea to doing all those things comes from the fear that you won't be heard. It's not so much about what TO do, but what NOT to do. 

OK so youre saying do nothing? You have to really be specific here and im gonna push you on it because its the crux of youre argument, youre saying what not to do, that has merit, but also it doesnt usually work. The example i gave earlier was Kapernick protesting peacefully which he got a lot of hate for from the right, they said that he should not have disrespected the anthem, flag etc. So we've established that a peaceful protest can be and was disregarded. The only reason why people are talking about BLM is because of the current protests many of which were actually peaceful. So i ask again what can be done, doing nothing has obviously never worked in history so i dont think that answer is valid. 

Also a fear that you wont be heard, makes sense as people havent been heard that is the point

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Consept

[roopepa]

47 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

I can't change other people laughing when those protestors brought it upon themselves, I wasn't the one who was there and protested. Have you considered that you may be invalidating the problems those protestors were causing to the slaughterhouse? If one of them got injured, it would be a major liability for the slaughterhouse. That's a dirty way to protest. You aren't helping the cause much either by condoning that kind of behavior. You're an employee going to work one day at a slaughterhouse and some entitled  protestor almost dies protesting at your slaughterhouse. Put yourself in their shoes as well 

Do you really think this way or are you trying to prove some point? Are you trying to show off your ability to remain neutral & pick different sides in these problems? If you are, there is no need for that. Everyone you are talking with here can do that. You are not helping anyone.

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

With all due respect. It kind of sounds like you're rationalizing personal accountability as being insignificant.

This is a view from a binary lens of either significant or insignificant. Within such a binary construct, if the mind perceive’s a view on personal responsibility as not being significant, the mind considers the view as saying personal responsibility is insignificant. 

You said you are interested in nuances. A more sophisticated view would be that personal responsibility is along a spectrum as is social responsibility. In this more sophisticated model, responsibility is not simply direct one step cause-effect in which we attribute 100% responsibility to an individual. Yet with spectrums and variant inputs of causation, we also don’t give 0% responsibility to the individual. (This of course assumes a self entity. Higher models factor in the illusory nature of self and free will).

Consider something like schizophrenia. This has many inputs of causation including dozens of different genes, neurite trimming in the pre-frontal cortex and epigenetics as well as one’s environment - both social inputs and personal choices. For example, parental neglect and childhood trauma are factors among many factors. A systemic view would consider a wide range of inputs. If we focused on one gene involved and extrapolated that to be responsible, it would be too zoomed in and create a distorted big picture image. 

If I said “the disc-1 gene is one of many factors in schizophrenia” and someone responded “you think the disc-1 gene is insignificant”, it would indicate that the person is using a small map and binary constructs. This can happen with neuroscientists that get locked into a zoomed in view, yet they can generally get pulled out by a systemic thinker.

The challenge is when a mind gets attached to it’s point and is unable to let go. For example, a neuroscientist that is attached to his belief that the disc-1 gene causes schizophrenia. This is partially true, yet incomplete.

Similarly, this often happens in regards to personal responsibility. A simple model of cause-effect and personal choice has value in size contexts, yet it is super simplistic. There are many other inputs and models to be considered.

Again, I’m not saying your views are wrong, I’m saying they are partial truths within a larger system. It’s like you keep saying France is Europe and I keep trying to say France is within Europe and that Europe is more complex than France because Europe includes France. Yet you keep saying “But look at this map of France!”.

[Nyseto]

15 minutes ago, Consept said:

OK so youre saying do nothing? You have to really be specific here and im gonna push you on it because its the crux of youre argument, youre saying what not to do, that has merit, but also it doesnt usually work. The example i gave earlier was Kapernick protesting peacefully which he got a lot of hate for from the right, they said that he should not have disrespected the anthem, flag etc. So we've established that a peaceful protest can be and was disregarded. The only reason why people are talking about BLM is because of the current protests many of which were actually peaceful. So i ask again what can be done, doing nothing has obviously never worked in history so i dont think that answer is valid. 

Also a fear that you wont be heard, makes sense as people havent been heard that is the point

 

I didn't say do nothing. I said don't do those specific things. And I'll have to disagree on Kapernick's protest as being disregarded. It was disregarded by the right, but not the left. How many players are taking a knee during the anthem now? Obviously it's had a huge effect. I'd say going as far as firing him is too far. If the right wanted to make their case, they could of just taken a more positive approach that as a country, we are accepting of those that don't want to stand for the anthem because it is also due to America that Kapernick got to where he's at unlike being in a different country. Peaceful protesting is not doing nothing. 

I also want to point out that Kapernick might also be unaware of the amount of whites that did to police brutality as well. The media loves to highlight people of other races but not so much white people which is what's contributing to so much ignorance. People literally think white people are somehow immune. The media itself is not very conscious because it only wants to pick and choose to play into fear.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Consept said:

Youve highlighted criticisms of blm which is cool, but then you have to look at what was the purpose of your criticism? You agreed there would be a need for something like blm but youre not happy with the current movement, so what would you do differently or how would you address the current disparities of race or at least the discontent people feel?

If you cant answer these questions i dont think you should really criticise as you cant come up with a better or even a different solution yourself. Otherwise the end point of your criticism is just blm is bad

This is the distinction from criticizing from above or criticizing from below. Jordan Peterson does this a lot. He says he is pro-environment, lgbtq or gender equality and then 99% of his view becomes criticizing the environmental movement, lgbtq or women in in a way that pulls down into the status quo rather than pulling up to higher consciousness.

If some was at a high conscious level and wanted to progress toward greater equality, they would focus the vast amount of their attention toward solutions and moving toward greater equality, since they are sick of living with inequality and injustice. They may criticize components of the movement, yet there would be a very different orientation. For example, if our #1 goal was to decrease injustices and increase equality in our city and we are at a city hall meeting to design best strategy, we wouldn’t sit there all day cherry picking and complaining about aspects of Blm. In terms of our goal toward greater equality, we may bring up the issue of looting incidents in the context of how this impacts our strategy toward greater equality. Yet the vast amount of attention would be spent on addressing problems of injustice and solutions toward equality. And everyone with this goal would jump on the opportunity to discuss it. 

[Nyseto]

14 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Do you really think this way or are you trying to prove some point? Are you trying to show off your ability to remain neutral & pick different sides in these problems? If you are, there is no need for that. Everyone you are talking with here can do that. You are not helping anyone.

If you mean "thinking this way" as in being able to see multiple angles of a situation, then yes. I have no reason to show off any ability in picking different sides. It's just what came to mind as soon as the other guy mentioned slaughterhouses.

[Nyseto]

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This is the distinction from criticizing from above or criticizing from below. Jordan Peterson does this a lot. He says he is pro-environment, lgbtq or gender equality and then 99% of his view becomes criticizing the environmental movement, lgbtq or women in in a way that pulls down into the status quo rather than pulling up to higher consciousness.

If some was at a high conscious level and wanted to progress toward greater equality, they would focus the vast amount of their attention toward solutions and moving toward greater equality, since they are sick of living with inequality and injustice. They may criticize components of the movement, yet there would be a very different orientation. For example, if our #1 goal was to decrease injustices and increase equality in our city and we are at a city hall meeting to design best strategy, we wouldn’t sit there all day cherry picking and complaining about aspects of Blm. In terms of our goal toward greater equality, we may bring up the issue of looting incidents in the context of how this impacts our strategy toward greater equality. Yet the vast amount of attention would be spent on addressing problems of injustice and solutions toward equality. And everyone with this goal would jump on the opportunity to discuss it. 

Here's the thing though. Not using this as distraction as some may like to assume. But at the end of the day, we are equally different. We will never have perfect equality and I feel like some people are just looking too much at a utopia instead of reality. There's a point where we can only be so equal. The best way to equality is through consciousness. As long as people aren't conscious enough, there will be devils thinking they're better than others and devils always thinking someone's out to get them.

There should be some type of room to compete. That isn't a low conscious cloak for fueling old, destructive ways. I'm looking at it from a higher consciousness where competing is a part of life, it's a dance. It should be fun, an expression of love. Demonizing inequality is just as bad as demonizing equality. 

I think equal opportunity and programs providing equal opportunity for the unfortunate is pretty good. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto

[Scholar]

@Nyseto

The reason why it is so easy for others here to identify that your mind is closed and your heart filled with fear. Imagine someone raped a woman, and someone else caught the rapist in the act. The person punched the rapist and pulled him away from the woman.

Imagine now a person coming up to this situation and being outraged. "How could you punch the rapist? You could have just pulled him away! Let me tell you exactly why I think you should have treated the rapist with compassion and restrained him without punching him!"

Notice how this is inappropriate. While yes, the person should have not punched the rapist, something seems wrong with a mind that would focus on this particular detail in this particular situation. In fact it lacks compassion for the woman who was raped and for the person who punched the rapist. Imagine if the first thing that came to your mind when I mentioned rape is a person restraining a rapist in a way that you think to be inappropriate. That you would post this here, announcing it with the words "Lol". What would this mean to you?

 

When you have equal compassion for everyone, you do not focus your compassion on everyone equally. The suffering of the one who was raped is far more significant, and any truly compassionate person would know that this is where your mind ought to be focused on.

 

 

If you were truly open hearted, you would look at this in a completely different way. Your response to the activist who has chained himself up would not be "Lol, he brought this upon himself", rather it would have been. "Wow, this poor man. He cares about these animals who are suffering deeply so much that he would put himself in harms way to try to change this. I believe the way he does this is not the right way to do this, let me try to help him, because I myself do not want these animals to suffer. I will aid him on his path by giving him some ideas of how he could improve his activism."

None of this was present here. You have been demeaning them, invalidating them for their efforts. The way your spoke would have not been compelling to them at all, if they had been present here. They would have felt ridiculed and judged.

 

I think you should do as I proposed. Come back here one day with an open heart. You will learn.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

24 minutes ago, Nyseto said:

Here's the thing though. Not using this as distraction as some may like to assume. But at the end of the day, we are equally different. We will never have perfect equality and I feel like some people are just looking too much at a utopia instead of reality. There's a point where we can only be so equal. The best way to equality is through consciousness. As long as people aren't conscious enough, there will be devils thinking they're better than others and devils always thinking someone's out to get them.

I agree that increased consciousness is of value, yet humans and cultures are not going to suddenly wake up en mass and jump from red to yellow. Wishing that a sudden jump in consciousness will eradicate systemic racism is overly idealistic, imo. There is 150+ years of racism baked into our systems and it’s going to take time and effort to purify and eradicate it. 

At the personal level, it would be like someone saying “If I awaken, all of my neurosis will dissolve”. This just isn’t the case, even after awakening, conditioned patterns and neuroses continue to appear. There is still a lot of work to purify the human mind-body and heal. Same for a social level. There is a lot of work to heal society. And once an individual heals themself, they can better help others in society to heal.

If we were on a city council and had a 1 million dollar budget to reduce injustices in our city, I would be ok allocating 100k or so into education to increase consciousness, yet not the whole thing. As well, there would be intense resistance to any education trying to increase consciousness. 

[Nyseto]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

@Nyseto

The reason why it is so easy for others here to identify that your mind is closed and your heart filled with fear. Imagine someone rape a woman, and someone else caught the rapist in the act. The person punches the rapist and pulls him away from the woman.

Imagine now a person coming up to this situation and being outraged. "How could you punch the racist? You could have just pulled him away! Let me tell you exactly why I think you should have treated the rapist with compassion and restrained him without punching him!"

Notice how this is inappropriate. While yes, the person should have not punched the rapist, something seems wrong with a mind that would focus on this particular detail in this particular situation. In fact it lacks compassion for the woman who was raped and for the person who punched the rapist. Imagine if the first thing that came to your mind when I mentioned rape is a person restraining a rapist in a way that you think to be inappropriate. What would this mean to you?

 

When you have equal compassion for everyone, you do not focus your compassion on everyone equally. The suffering of the one who was raped is far more significant, and any truly compassionate person would know that this is where your mind ought to be focused on.

 

 

If you were truly open hearted, you would look at this in a completely different way. Your response to the activist who has chained himself up would not be "Lol, he brought this upon himself", rather it would have been. "Wow, this poor man. He cares about these animals who are suffering deeply so much that he would put himself in harms way to try to change this. I believe the way he does this is not the right way to do this, let me try to help him, because I myself do not want these animals to suffer. I will aid him on his path by giving him some ideas of how he could improve his activism."

None of this was present here. You have been demeaning them, invalidating them for their efforts. The way your spoke would have not been compelling to them at all, if they had been present here. They would have felt ridiculed and judged.

 

I think you should do as I proposed. Come back here one day with an open heart. You will learn.

Just because I didn't say it that way about that man protesting at the slaughterhouse doesn't mean that I have no compassion for him. I'd want him to get counseling to help him with his suffering. 

What you're doing is jumping to conclusions about me and that's why you are demonizing me and feeling the way you do. Life is not 100% serious as you make it out to be either you know. But I never said I had no compassion. I said he brought it upon himself and became a laughing stock for people. I'd want to help the man to not become a laughing stock by putting himself at harm that way. Talking to you just gives me this vibe that you see the worst in people and are quick about it too. You are here condemning me that I'm demeaning them and that's it. Who are you to condemn anyone if that's the place you're truly coming from? 

Just because I do not talk like you, doesn't mean that I'm heartless. It really just seems that you're holding onto this image of what "having a heart" is like and then projecting that. And anyone who doesn't fit your model, is automatically heartless. I have compassion for you being this way and I hope you find the light in yourself.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Nyseto