Is Ben Shapiro really at Blue?

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

And of course even Ben will have some bits of Green. For example, he will consider gays human beings.

I would say this is a result of Stage Orange's world-centric, humanistic values, which are in narration something akin to: "There are gays, they are humans, leave them alone, let's say we support them and all, but maybe don't act on it and change laws, because that would stir controversy and destroy the story we have about living in a peak-development, global society."

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

But are those who are about 50% Orange 50% Green much more consistent and much less hypocritical about capitalism than those who are 50% Blue 50% Orange?

On the whole I would say they are definitely a bit more consistent.

But the human mind is run on self-bias and hypocrisy, so you should still expect plenty of hypocrisy from libs and even progressives.

Out-growing hypocrisy is an extremely advanced stage of development which 99% of humans will never reach.

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Girzo said:

I would say this is a result of Stage Orange's world-centric, humanistic values, which are in narration something akin to: "There are gays, they are humans, leave them alone, let's say we support them and all, but maybe don't act on it and change laws, because that would stir controversy and destroy the story we have about living in a peak-development, global society."

You could make that case. Although I think a lot of the acceptance of LGBTQ today is thanks to Green memes infecting our culture.

America was pretty Orange 30 years ago when LGBTQ folks were regularly demonized.

"LGBTQ" is a Green meme. I would say that gay rights and gay marriage is a Green achievement. And even most conservatives have conceded on this issue by now, unless they are fundamentalist Blue. Many conservatives in America are okay now with treating gays as normal people. It just looks bad to hate on gays now. It makes you look like a social retard and conservatives like to be conformist.

[Hardkill]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

On the whole I would say they are definitely a bit more consistent.

But the human mind is run on self-bias and hypocrisy, so you should still expect plenty of hypocrisy from libs and even progressives.

Out-growing hypocrisy is an extremely advanced stage of development which 99% of humans will never reach.

I gotcha.

Yeah, progressives and really are highly sanctimonious. Yet, they are hypocritical and sometimes sound dumb when they about their views on hierarchy, borders, warfare, combat, capitalism, corporations/businesses, economics, some medicines/drugs, etc. Corporate Dems are more practical than progressives; however, they are more hypocritical than progressives when they talk about corporations/businesses and capitalism because they have been corrupted by corporate donors. However, I do believe that generally both progressives and centre-left dems are indeed still morally superior to those who are centre-right or right wing.

So, the higher up the stage the less hypocritical they are and only those who are SOLID YELLOW and above are the only few people in the world who have out-grown hypocrisy.

 

 

[Hardkill]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You could make that case. Although I think a lot of the acceptance of LGBTQ today is thanks to Green memes infecting our culture.

America was pretty Orange 30 years ago when LGBTQ folks were regularly demonized.

"LGBTQ" is a Green meme. I would say that gay rights and gay marriage is a Green achievement. And even most conservatives has conceded ground on this issue by now, unless they are fundamentalist Blue.

You said before that America was extremely Blue during the 60's and anytime before that. So, if that's the case then does that mean that America was never truly a 1st world democracy before the 70's? 

[Joel3102]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Many conservatives in America are okay now with treating gays as normal people. It just looks bad to hate on gays now. It makes you look like a social retard and conservatives like to be conformist.

Now the next battle Is getting them to accept trans people. It just melts the conservative brain, they cannot wrap their minds around it. Even most secular, 21st century right wingers don’t believe being trans is a real things 

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

You said before that America was extremely Blue during the 60's and anytime before that. So, if that's the case then does that mean that America was never truly a 1st world democracy before the 70's? 

Arguments have been made that America was not really a democracy until the Civil Rights movement.

But "democracy" is a relative notion with many degrees to it. It's not a simple binary. Democracy has many degrees of quality -- which is what matters.

The notion of "a true 1st world democracy" is highly relative and constructed. What does that even mean? People will have all sorts of subjective ideas about that question.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Now the next battle Is getting them to accept trans people. It just melts the conservative brain, they cannot wrap their minds around it. Even most secular, 21st century right wingers don’t believe being trans is a real things 

Yes, because their worldview is too closedminded to seriously consider that gender categories are relative constructions of the mind and culture.

Admitting that degree of mental construction is very threatening. What next? Science is a construction? Atoms are a construction? God is a construction? Race is a construction? My country is a construction? My history is a construction? My self is a construction?

[Hardkill]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Arguments have been made that America was not really a democracy until the Civil Rights movement.

But "democracy" is a relative notion with many degrees to it. It's not a simple binary. Democracy has many degrees of quality -- which is what matters.

The notion of "a true 1st world democracy" is high relative and constructed. What does that even mean? People will have all sorts of subjective ideas about that question.

Ahh, I see...that's interesting. 

By true 1st world democracy I mean a democracy in a first world country like the US or Israel, whereas a 2nd world democracy would be one in a 2nd world country like India or Mongolia. Actually, according to the experts on this matter, the US has sadly dropped from being a full or liberal democracy to being on the level of a flawed or illiberal democracy very similar to that of Israel. However, according to the democracy index, the US and Israel still have a much higher level of democracy than countries like India or Mongolia. 

So, you could say that the USA did begin with some kind of democracy and then from there, the country's level of democracy continually increased overtime in a gradual manner over the course of almost two centuries. Correct?

Edited January 23, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

By true 1st world democracy I mean a democracy in a first world country like the US

But this is a circular definition which begs the question, since you are defining democracy by using the US as the touchstone, thus taking the touchstone for granted as a stable given.

[Ulax]

@Roy My first impulse was a conflict regarding whether he intends well. However, then my mind goes to his war mongering video vis-à-vis Iran, during the major diplomatic issues of 2020.

[How to be wise]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Plus, most Americans are not solid Blue, they are more like 50% Blue 50% Orange.

Really? Then what’s the difference between America and Russia/China? How is the West clearly distinctive from the rest of the world if it is half Blue and half Orange?

[Hardkill]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But this is a circular definition which begs the question, since you are defining democracy by using the US as the touchstone, thus taking the touchstone for granted as a stable given.

I am not saying that it has to be like US.

Though are you saying that a nation doesn't have to have a high level of democracy in order to become a 1st world country?

Edited January 23, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Really? Then what’s the difference between America and Russia/China? How is the West clearly distinctive from the rest of the world if it is half Blue and half Orange?

Russia and China got a lot more Red & Blue. And also, remember, there is much development room within each stage. For example, it might take 50-100 years for development to go from early Blue to late Blue, or to just enter Orange vs mature Orange.

There is also a difference between a country's cutting edge vs it's center of gravity vs it's tail. The cutting edge of Russia or China might be high Orange, but that's still a tiny portion of the overall population. It will need another 50-100 years to trickle down to the masses and solidify within all the social systems.

50 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Though are you saying that a nation doesn't have to have a high level of democracy in order to become a 1st world country?

These notions are highly relative. You're the one defining "1st world country" and "democracy". It means whatever you want it to mean in your mind.

[Hardkill]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

These notions are highly relative. You're the one defining "1st world country" and "democracy". It means whatever you want it to mean in your mind.

So, if I am just making up the definitions of "1st world country" and "democracy," then what is the correct definition of a first world country?

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

what is the correct definition of a first world country?

What is the correct way to slice a cake?

[Hardkill]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

What is the correct way to slice a cake?

lol. This is getting very philosophical.

I am really going to have to think long and hard about this.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Be very careful about taking this advanced society for granted, most of humanity is underdeveloped.

My family is Lebanese and we didn't even have conistant electricity and water. My family was there when Israel invaded Southern Lebanon and my Dad was almost killed. Today Lebanon is highly unstable country with rapid inflation, the recent Beruit port explosion, and militant groups (such as Hezbollah and the Lebanese forces) having fights with assault weapons on the street. Lebanon was also super close to being invaded by ISIS/The Islamic State. 

I really don't like it when you Western types constantly complain about your own country's lack of development. Like; Boo hoo boo boo our country is not stage gween yet! Like, STFU! You guys have a stable Democracy, stable currency, no terorism, running water and electricity.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Husseinisdoingfine]

8 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

I really don't like it when you Western types constantly complain about your own country's lack of development. Like; Boo hoo boo boo our country is not stage gween yet! Like, STFU! You guys have a stable Democracy, stable currency, no terorism, running water and electricity.

The United States is still an Imperialist world empire btw, responsible for much of the instability in the Middle East and South America with its' agrresive militarist foreign policy, Government interference, and economic Imperialism. Same thing applies to Western Europe.

[Tanz]

I don't really agree with Ben Shapiro on most things but his critism over the billionaire is waranteed. 

The tech billionaire was painfully honest and a good majority of us are very much like him on various degrees.