How Dangerous is Postmodern Cultural Relativism?

[UDT]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Welcome to stage Green.

You're complaining about cancel culture.

Have you got nothing better to do?

Where am I complaining?

Does Kumbaja stand for "censor the shit out of the internet" ?


 

Imagine we have the same issue but its 500y earlier, so the censors are all about religion. They watch a Leo video about god, their crucifix falls from the wall, youre reported and out for hate speech and misinformation.

Millions of people never hear your message, you cant even make money from it, so you put out 1/10 of the videos you´d normally. Is that good for society?

Imagine its 1000y into the future and stage Aliencolor censors every last blue fundamentalist --> Still wrong! This leads to extremism, sub-groups, a split society, and worse.


And again its not about obvious racism or appeals for violence, its about dangerously vague policies leading to some platforms controlling the information flow of the entire western world. 

Doesnt really sound green. More like orange instrumentalizing some green values for its purposes. 


 

[Extreme Z7]

@UDT  I find it hard to take you seriously when you're fearmongering about online moderation causing strong division. Or in your words, extremism, sub-groups, a split society, and God forbid. . . . WORSE?!!!

Let's not forget that the biggest division will always come from getting radicalized by toxic people, especially if you're young. . . or just really stupid.

I'm finding it harder and harder to find the ideas of you free speech libertarian types acceptable. There is a strong denial of the dangers of conspiratorial thinking, misinformation campaigns, hate speech, toxic ideologies, bullying, etc.

Nobody is oppressing/censuring you just for being Stage Blue, that's only if you're also being an unconscious asshat.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Extreme Z7

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura I am 22 year old and i come from a blue country so yeah, i am not fully Green yet. However, i have friends from all sorts of religions, sexualities, races, countries etc and i am cool with all of them. I do not dislike any of them inherently nor think my culture is superior. In these ways i am green. However, i am struggling a bit with handling the oversensitive element of stage green, i find it a bit too much. I personally never use racist or offensive language on others but that is because i do not consider race or religion etc to be something that you should feel bad about. My biggest issue with cancel culture and oversensitivness is how downright difficult it makes it for others to go to green. I have talked with dozens of blue/orange folks (they do not know spiral dynamics) and whenever the conversation goes towards stage green people and society, they always complain about how oversensitive it is. I think if we want society to move towards green, this should be handled a little better.

Imagine talking to a blue folk about orange, and he starts to complain how greedy capitalists are because that is all he can think about stage orange. 

My understanding of spiral dynamics is not the best (did not read its books yet) so if i made mistakes explaining  do not crucify me please  

[UDT]

36 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

I find it hard to take you seriously when you're fearmongering about online moderation causing strong division. Or in your words, extremism, sub-groups, a split society, and God forbid. . . . WORSE?!!!

You don´t understand that our complete culture is happening online. 

If you force sub groups off of the major platforms, they will radicalize in off-mainstream communication channels. Thats exactly when radicalisation happens. 

 

36 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

I'm finding it harder and harder to find the ideas of you free speech libertarian types acceptable. There is a strong denial of the dangers of conspiratorial thinking, misinformation campaigns, hate speech, toxic ideologies, bullying, etc.

You believing you can errect a global filter to judge what misinformation, conspirational thinking, toxic ideologies etc. are and censor them,
is the danger for a free society. 
You just have to take a look into history to confirm that
Not that it wouldnt be a good thing to moderate toxicity and hate speech. It would be awesome. But its practically impossible. According to mainstream materialism, Actualized.org is mis-information. 


___
Again I encourage everyone who participated in this discussion and has not, to get the audio or written of 1984 and take a weekend to read it. It seems some here are quite naive and take a functioning society for granted. With that Im out of here

Edited July 10, 2021 by UDT

[Consept]

25 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

I have talked with dozens of blue/orange folks (they do not know spiral dynamics) and whenever the conversation goes towards stage green people and society, they always complain about how oversensitive it is. I think if we want society to move towards green, this should be handled a little better.

Do you ever consider that blue especially but also orange are also incredibly sensitive, you could make the argument that they are even more sensitive than green, it's just that their sensitivities are more respected. 

For example if we look at blue and not even necessarily an extreme version. They tend to be religious, if anything was said about Jewish, Christian or Muslim people, even in an outdated language type of way they would be extremely sensitive to it. In fact there are anti-defamation organisations setup with the express intent of looking for these infractions that could even loosely be deemed as defamation, which then the person responsible will be sued or worse. I wont get into the backlash that has occurred from criticising Islam. 

Republicans are intensely sensitive, abortion, immigration, patriotism. The uproar and outrage from Kaepernick taking the knee was incredible. 

So to me it would seem people on both sides are sensitive, it's just that the green side is seen as comical or over the top, but I think this comes down to people being against the core ideas. The core ideas of green are not changing language, although both sides can do that to suit them, their ideas are about protecting the environment, treating animals as sentient beings, community etc. I think the reductionist way of taking them down to their most annoying tendancies is actually exceptional and a kind of whatever works marketing by the right, as it means you don't take them seriously and therefore don't look at the bigger picture. This strategy is played by both sides to some extent but the right are able to be more ruthless with it. 

 

[DocWatts]

Ken Wilber wrote quite persuasively on this topic, as the subject of Green postmodernism is something he discusses with some regularity across the many books he's authored.

Essentially, every new socio-cultural paradigm (which is what a stage in Spiral Dynamics is referring to) arises because it solves some sort of problem or limitation from the previous stage. But on the flip side of that in addition to the new possibilities a socio-cultural paradigm introduces, it also brings with it the potential for new pathologies as well.

And make no mistake: Green postmodernism was a necessary and useful developmental stage that also brought with it new pathologies.

And while there's plenty to be said about Green postmodern pathology, useful and valid critiques of Green are going to come from developmental stages above Green (SD-Yellow), rather than from below it (SD-Blue and SD-Orange).

Reason for this is the Stages above have already gone through Green, transcending and including its Truths while experiencing firsthand its limitations. Critique from above, not below.

The works of yellow thinkers such as Ken Wilber or David Foster Wallace are a great place to start for an in depth examination of Green Postmodernism.

[Gesundheit2]

1984 has been on my list forever! I've always heard about how it's so ahead of its time. I think it's time I should give it a read.

[lmfao]

@Gesundheit2 Read it with fresh eyes as a story, before hearing other people talk about it. I read 1984 first before I knew much of people obsessing over it.

If you're looking for other types of dystopia novels, different from 1984, try Philip K Dick. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by lmfao

[Gesundheit2]

@lmfao Thanks for the suggestion. To be clear, I'm not a book-worm, nowhere near it, but I do appreciate inputs from high quality thinkers such as yourself. Will definitely save that guy's name and check him out.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[lmfao]

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

 high quality thinkers such as yourself

Love you too brother 

[bejapuskas]

I dont think US is turning orwellian. But even if we take that into account, this activist culture where ideally all people have equal rights (they dont have to be same, although they can be, as diversity is also useful and beautiful) is much less dangerous, if you consider people who arent white western heterosexual cis men to also be people who are endangered. This culture only endangers people, non-lethally, who dont educate themselves and speak nonsense bcz of their privilege.

[Extreme Z7]

16 hours ago, UDT said:

If you force sub groups off of the major platforms, they will radicalize in off-mainstream communication channels. Thats exactly when radicalisation happens.

The strong majority of normies are not going to go out of their way to find obscure banned content. They're usually radicalized by some cult-of-personality that they really trust sharing with them dangerous rhetoric.

16 hours ago, UDT said:

Not that it wouldnt be a good thing to moderate toxicity and hate speech. It would be awesome. But its practically impossible. According to mainstream materialism, Actualized.org is mis-information.

You're a total fool to compare Actualized.org with hate speech.

16 hours ago, UDT said:

Again I encourage everyone who participated in this discussion and has not, to get the audio or written of 1984 and take a weekend to read it. It seems some here are quite naive and take a functioning society for granted. With that Im out of here

Get some help, man.
There has to be something wrong with you to think the very functioning of society is being threatened by not allowing people to yell "burn the gays".
We have social norms for a reason. And we must also enforce them in online spaces.

P.S. I'm willing to bet you haven't actually read 1984. But if you did, you almost definitely didn't understand it. You're just parroting another right-wing talking point.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Extreme Z7

[lmfao]

@Milos Uzelac I read all that shit you pasted. But what do you think?

On 10/07/2021 at 2:00 AM, Milos Uzelac said:

And, at the summit itself, Rutte threatened that Hungary “must repeal” its (allegedly) “anti-gay law”, and respect fundamental human rights, “which are not negotiable — or they must leave [the Union]”.

Now, I don't care about making someone leave or join whatever union. But do you not think Hungary's anti-gay laws are anything but regressive and evil? It's seeking to diminish people's education and knowledge about LGBTQ issues. Why do that?

Do you think it is untruthful to tell kids that being gay is okay? Why would you think it isn't?

I'll preface by saying I don't give a shit about whether the EU is right or not in trying to force Hungary to change. Do you think there is virtue in Hungary's "anti-gay law"? {I'm not asking you to use woke language with "virtue", I mean what the word meant before woke faggots hijacked that word}
--

Article then talks about the culture war, and the war against populism. It's a rant about how liberal globalists wish to take over the world, atomise society into a collection of disconnected and lonely individuals. It's just a bullshit rant of whatever. 


The article seems to praise Hungary for their laws banning education of homosexuality as a victory for populism.
Does this make populism incompatible with free knowledge and education of the people? 

Edited July 11, 2021 by lmfao

[lmfao]

@UDT Overall man I feel what you're saying.

I've learnt to filter out all the references and appeals to authority through spiral dynamics as just noise. 

When it comes to the matter of language censorship and the such, I'm probably even more extreme than you. My reason for it is simple. I want radical honesty, the embracing of the shadow, overcoming games of pretending.

Edited July 11, 2021 by lmfao

[cookiemonster]

39 minutes ago, lmfao said:

{I mean what the word meant before woke faggots hijacked that word}

 

Ideally, the place we need to get to is where heterosexuality as the default sexuality is permanently eradicated.

For example, even in 2021, many heterosexual males still have not had any gay experiences whatsoever, despite being confident of their heterosexuality,

The dream is that in just a couple of generations we can change this, so that by default, young adults will for the most part be totally experienced in both heterosexual and homosexual casual sex, and thereafter can make a more informed choice about longer term partners.

But in order to make that dream a reality, we first have to clamp down hard on the heterodoxy, the homophobic barbarians and the cultural fascists.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by cookiemonster

[Anastas Sia]

@UDT @thisintegrated if you think youre at stage yellow or above, how was it like going through stage green for you?

cause I see a lot of bias here. Maybe you should hang out with left-wing, lgbtq people more and try to understand their perspective, it would be a huge benefit any way you look at it.

you know that many lgbt people cant live their truth because of society and/or the people around them? I live in third world country, its ILLEGAL to be gay here. Is that not censorship? I see a lot of discriminatory views in my family, in regular people, in politics, and now here. masked as some kind of advanced idea. if anywhere youre being silenced it is because your views are getting old and people see that they are hurtful. the world is gonna become more sensitive before it calms down, so what? though I dont think were gonna see a stage yellow government or society in our lifetime.

@UDTlanguage changes all the time. whats your point? all I see is fearmongering. if some crazy little portion of progressives decide to ban the word "black" altogether and only let black people use it, society wont accept that. it wont happen. but if youre gonna say the n-word and be hateful of course people will dislike you.

in your own experience how has left-wing censorship affected you? Im not talking about something youve read on internet or seen in the news, you choose the media you consume.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Anastas Sia

[UDT]

@Extreme Z7  lol what?

 

15 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Get some help, man.
There has to be something wrong with you to think the very functioning of society is being threatened by not allowing people to yell "burn the gays".

So in no way ever did I say that - your accusation is groundless..

See what I did say was this:

On 10/07/2021 at 1:47 AM, UDT said:

Again, it is not about clearly as insulting defined words such as the N-word or calling native americans "Indians". Its when there is no clear boundary so everything becomes hate speech and everyone can pull the trigger on everyone.

Its not my job to quote myself, could you read what I wrote before commenting on what I wrote? Makes sense right.

 

15 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

P.S. I'm willing to bet you haven't actually read 1984. But if you did, you almost definitely didn't understand it. You're just parroting another right-wing talking point.

Nice, next time say what you bet so I can give you my paypal. 


You really did not say anything new and every of the points you made could have been answered by reading what I, or others, wrote already. I already did say everything what I wanted to say so please is it possible you respect that I said Im not replying anymore? You only made me reply because you said I want people to yell "burn the gays" which is a horrible accusation, not in the slightest the truth, so I had to respond to this. Thank you for understanding.

Edited July 11, 2021 by UDT

[UDT]

10 hours ago, Anastas Sia said:

@UDTlanguage changes all the time. whats your point? all I see is fearmongering. if some crazy little portion of progressives decide to ban the word "black" altogether and only let black people use it, society wont accept that. it wont happen. but if youre gonna say the n-word and be hateful of course people will dislike you.

@Anastas Sia  Of course. But what I see happening is people who share medical, scientific or other information are getting banned from platforms under the veil of it being "hate speech and misinformation". 

(said it already, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine getting banned off linkedIn for sharing pubmed study). 

What I´m saying is, if everything can become mis-information or hate speech, because we do not clearly define, what it is or what it is not - we leave the door open for agencies to censor what they dont want out there, just using "oh it was hate speech and fake news" as the argument - and no one can really see if it was true or not. 

Clearly a pubmed study has nothing to do with gender rights. But today it is enough for major platforms to ban, email you "this was taken down because it violates mis-information policy" and that´s it. 
This is what I am not happy with, and neither should anyone - who does want to preserve a healthy freedom of information and free speech, which is essential for a healthy society imo. 

 

[Arcangelo]

18 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

You're a total fool to compare Actualized.org with hate speech.

He said misinformation. What's wrong with you?

[Danioover9000]

   Cancel culture is like the boy who cried wolf too many times.

   Keep in mind, this is not entirely stage green's weakness, but stage blue/orange business people can and do use social media leverage and use mob justice. against their competitions that resembles a tiny bit of plagiarism.