Stage Green Excesses Not Mentioned in Leo's Video

[Truth-Seeker]

I just watched Leo's Stage Green video and took many notes and found it very insightful and incredible. However, as I continued to contemplate it, I found 2 more excesses to Green that he may have forgotten to mention and that I WANT TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL:

1) Implicit racism of Green that comes from good intention. Bear with me on this one . Stage Green can be implicitly racist with good intention by dividing mankind into the "oppressor" class and "oppressed" class and then blaming everything on the oppressor and absolving the "oppressed" from anything they may do. This is done in a neurotic manner that lacks nuance and systems thinking.

• For example, as an Iraqi that  grew up in Iraq in the pre-2003 Saddamist era and the Post-2003 US occupation era, I got to see that racism of Green after I moved to Canada. 
• While the American government caused immense destabilization, had a ridiculously stupid foreign policy in Iraq, and took very uncalculated and heavy-handed moves, the Iraqis are usually to blame for the mess that ensued. I know this, I lived it, and I have seen what Iraqis of the tribal class have done and all the militias they formed and all of the exploitation they did to each other. I am not getting into all of the technical details and minutia of that right now however. 
• Anyways, I move to Canada and then encounter the quintessential Stage Green liberals and they would tell me of how the Americans are fully to blame and you can feel this serious concern for these "poor Iraqis" as these innocent victims and how the Americans are so evil. They fully ignore the billions of dollars that Americans gave to Iraqi Officials to help them build Iraq only for Iraqi officials to embezzle them and pocket some to themselves, fund militias that kill civilians, and even help out Iran after all the sanctions were put onto them. And the worse part is how Iraqi Citizens repeatedly complain about these officials and then reelect them every time for tribal reasons. 
• This is quite racist in my opinion because this narrative is undergirded by a racist idea of American Whites being the "superior adults" and the Iraqis being "inferior minors" and that any mess happening in Iraq would 100% be the fault of the "adults!"
  • A helpful analogy: if an adult leaves a bunch of 4 year olds in a house full of knives on the floor and gasoline and fire sources and those 4 year olds hurt each other and kill each other and destroy the house...whom do we blame? THE ADULTS. 
  • But I want you guys to realize that Green will view White Americans as the "adults" and Iraqi OFFICIALS/POLITICIANS as "minors" who are poor victims without realizing that these GROWN MEN are actual criminals mostly responsible for the immense damage that happened. 
• The stage yellow point of view is seeing that Iraqis were (AND STILL ARE) at a Stage Red of development and it was mostly a clash of Orange intervention onto a Red/Blue primitive society. However, Green does NOT KNOW this but the way they behave does betray some implicit racism and when you point this out to them, they deny, deflect, and gaslight and look seriously distressed cuz they see the truth in it. The distress on their faces is especially poignant when they know the person accusing them of this racism is INDEED AN IRAQI. 

 

2) Hypocrisy in inclusivity that comes off as being cringy. They would be inclusive of minorities in TV Series of "period pieces" that portray life in Europe during the 19th century OR prior. However, they would never do the reverse. This again comes from their simplistic worldview of pigeonholing mankind into categories of "oppressor" vs "oppressed."

• I was watching this show called "Bridgerton" set in 1813 in London UK. I then begin seeing characters that are of the supposed nobility in 1813 UK that are black and south asian. 
  • I am SO GRATEFUL to Leo for introducing me to Spiral Dynamics because I looked at it and smiled and had this "AH HAH!!" or "EUREKA" moment where it all came together for me as a stage green political move. 
• I am still going to watch the show but it looks kinda cringy cuz you know damn well there were no African or South Asian nobility in 1813 UK. 
• The hypocrisy of this is that if they produce a show in 1813 China, all of the characters will be Chinese or at least East Asian. THEY WON'T EVEN INCLUDE ACTORS THAT ARE SOUTH ASIAN, MIDDLE EASTERN, or from any of the other minority races that are "oppressed" and "marginalized" in their world view. 
• I saw the same thing in the beauty and the beast movie. That story was set in the mid 1700s in France. 

 

Anyways, the old me would be triggered by these issues but now, spiral dynamics really helps me see it for what it is, a step in the development of western society towards collective systems thinking!

 

[Danioover9000]

@Truth-Seeker

29 minutes ago, Truth-Seeker said:

I just watched Leo's Stage Green video and took many notes and found it very insightful and incredible. However, as I continued to contemplate it, I found 2 more excesses to Green that he may have forgotten to mention and that I WANT TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL:

1) Implicit racism of Green that comes from good intention. Bear with me on this one . Stage Green can be implicitly racist with good intention by dividing mankind into the "oppressor" class and "oppressed" class and then blaming everything on the oppressor and absolving the "oppressed" from anything they may do. This is done in a neurotic manner that lacks nuance and systems thinking.

• For example, as an Iraqi that  grew up in Iraq in the pre-2003 Saddamist era and the Post-2003 US occupation era, I got to see that racism of Green after I moved to Canada. 
• While the American government caused immense destabilization, had a ridiculously stupid foreign policy in Iraq, and took very uncalculated and heavy-handed moves, the Iraqis are usually to blame for the mess that ensued. I know this, I lived it, and I have seen what Iraqis of the tribal class have done and all the militias they formed and all of the exploitation they did to each other. I am not getting into all of the technical details and minutia of that right now however. 
• Anyways, I move to Canada and then encounter the quintessential Stage Green liberals and they would tell me of how the Americans are fully to blame and you can feel this serious concern for these "poor Iraqis" as these innocent victims and how the Americans are so evil. They fully ignore the billions of dollars that Americans gave to Iraqi Officials to help them build Iraq only for Iraqi officials to embezzle them and pocket some to themselves, fund militias that kill civilians, and even help out Iran after all the sanctions were put onto them. And the worse part is how Iraqi Citizens repeatedly complain about these officials and then reelect them every time for tribal reasons. 
• This is quite racist in my opinion because this narrative is undergirded by a racist idea of American Whites being the "superior adults" and the Iraqis being "inferior minors" and that any mess happening in Iraq would 100% be the fault of the "adults!"
  • A helpful analogy: if an adult leaves a bunch of 4 year olds in a house full of knives on the floor and gasoline and fire sources and those 4 year olds hurt each other and kill each other and destroy the house...whom do we blame? THE ADULTS. 
  • But I want you guys to realize that Green will view White Americans as the "adults" and Iraqi OFFICIALS/POLITICIANS as "minors" who are poor victims without realizing that these GROWN MEN are actual criminals mostly responsible for the immense damage that happened. 
• The stage yellow point of view is seeing that Iraqis were (AND STILL ARE) at a Stage Red of development and it was mostly a clash of Orange intervention onto a Red/Blue primitive society. However, Green does NOT KNOW this but the way they behave does betray some implicit racism and when you point this out to them, they deny, deflect, and gaslight and look seriously distressed cuz they see the truth in it. The distress on their faces is especially poignant when they know the person accusing them of this racism is INDEED AN IRAQI. 

 

2) Hypocrisy in inclusivity that comes off as being cringy. They would be inclusive of minorities in TV Series of "period pieces" that portray life in Europe during the 19th century OR prior. However, they would never do the reverse. This again comes from their simplistic worldview of pigeonholing mankind into categories of "oppressor" vs "oppressed."

• I was watching this show called "Bridgerton" set in 1813 in London UK. I then begin seeing characters that are of the supposed nobility in 1813 UK that are black and south asian. 
  • I am SO GRATEFUL to Leo for introducing me to Spiral Dynamics because I looked at it and smiled and had this "AH HAH!!" or "EUREKA" moment where it all came together for me as a stage green political move. 
• I am still going to watch the show but it looks kinda cringy cuz you know damn well there were no African or South Asian nobility in 1813 UK. 
• The hypocrisy of this is that if they produce a show in 1813 China, all of the characters will be Chinese or at least East Asian. THEY WON'T EVEN INCLUDE ACTORS THAT ARE SOUTH ASIAN, MIDDLE EASTERN, or from any of the other minority races that are "oppressed" and "marginalized" in their world view. 
• I saw the same thing in the beauty and the beast movie. That story was set in the mid 1700s in France. 

 

Anyways, the old me would be triggered by these issues but now, spiral dynamics really helps me see it for what it is, a step in the development of western society towards collective systems thinking!

 

   I guess Leo didn't want to over focus on the excesses of green when there's more excesses of orange.

[Truth-Seeker]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Truth-Seeker

   I guess Leo didn't want to over focus on the excesses of green when there's more excesses of orange.

Possibly, but not gonna lie, the show "Bridgerton" is wonderful! I really like it lmao! The more I progress through the first episode, the less I care about there being non-white members of the English nobility. 

[Leo Gura]

Green tends to overcorrect on racism. Green is motivated to correct inequality, which ironically requires treating people unequaly.

Handicapped people get special treatment. Is this right or wrong? Who is to say how much special treatment is too much? What if we gave every handicapped person a helicopter, would that be fair or unfair? Who gets to say?

[ArcticGong]

The green outlook on Iraq seems more fair nuanced. Maybe a bit naive .Rather that. The opposite to openly lie about “weapons of mass destruction” as a pretence to take the oil, as the Donald and his blue and orange supporters wanted to do.

[Truth-Seeker]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Green tends to overcorrect on racism. Green is motivated to correct inequality, which ironically requires treating people unequaly.

Handicapped people get special treatment. Is this right or wrong? Who is to say how much special treatment is too much? What if we gave every handicapped person a helicopter, would that be fair or unfair? Who gets to say?

Yep, this is why I say that their racism has good intention.Green has this noble pursuit of trying to wipe out hundreds of years of history where the colonial European whites oppressed and marginalized minorities from the colonies that they discovered back when they were all stage blue.

As Green goes about this noble pursuit, they do cringy things like trying to reinvent a non-racist history. Or, they do something like FALSELY assuming that every nation impacted by western imperialism is a mess SOLELY from the actions of the western occupiers (or distant western meddlers). When in reality the mess is insanely multifactorial and requires serious systems thinking and there are no clear black-and-white "bad guys" and "good guys." 

[thisintegrated]

Green can be healthy or unhealthy.  But, in general, Greens are more advanced than Oranges, and so are typically among the most advanced people in the world.  Even Blues are, usually, good people, so finding a seriously racist Green is rare.

[SonataAllegro]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Green tends to overcorrect on racism. Green is motivated to correct inequality, which ironically requires treating people unequaly.

Handicapped people get special treatment. Is this right or wrong? Who is to say how much special treatment is too much? What if we gave every handicapped person a helicopter, would that be fair or unfair? Who gets to say?

I think of this as coming from a green ego with an instability at a lower stage. They may have a blue shadow that causes them to bring heavy moral judgement to these ethical issues or a red shadow that causes them to be violent about it. I think of true, healthy green as being much more nuanced and open minded, though not yet open to the relativism of yellow, which requires the person to be able to see past all cultural constructions.

I say this because most people i interact with are stage green and most of them are not this black and white unless they also clearly have some shadow of a lower stage. What are your thoughts @Leo Gura?

[vizual]

Are people here seriously comparing black people to handicapped people? wtf Lol. That's not even remotely comparable unless you are seriously racist.

 

[Truth-Seeker]

@SonataAllegro

Yes, this is very true and it is why I mention it as an excess of green. It is not applicable to a healthy green the properly integrated the lessons of blue and orange. 

9 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Green can be healthy or unhealthy.  But, in general, Greens are more advanced than Oranges, and so are typically among the most advanced people in the world.  Even Blues are, usually, good people, so finding a seriously racist Green is rare.

Right, and when I call them "racist" here, they aren't SERIOUSLY RACIST. It is a very warped situation where they have SO MUCH empathy for marginalized communities or people in 3rd world nations (who happened to be victims of Western Imperialism) that they literally develop an implicit racism.  

[Truth-Seeker]

1 minute ago, vizual said:

Are people here seriously comparing black people to handicapped people? wtf Lol. That's not even remotely comparable unless you are seriously racist.

 

I can't tell if you are trolling or instigating an argument here out of thin air.

Also, all Leo did was mention handicapped people as a marginalized community and a minority that suffers some inequality and suggested a rhetorical method for reparation/compensation to prove his point; the point being that Green tends to overcompensate in their correction of inequality and they do so by literally using inequality...

Nowhere did he even mention black people in his response. And nowhere did anyone mention black people on this thread. And I can't even conceive of anyone who has began to genuinely enter stage green and understands the spiral to actually be racist in the traditional stage-blue (and under) sense of the word. 

[vizual]

35 minutes ago, Truth-Seeker said:

I can't tell if you are trolling or instigating an argument here out of thin air.

Also, all Leo did was mention handicapped people as a marginalized community and a minority that suffers some inequality and suggested a rhetorical method for reparation/compensation to prove his point; the point being that Green tends to overcompensate in their correction of inequality and they do so by literally using inequality...

Nowhere did he even mention black people in his response. And nowhere did anyone mention black people on this thread. And I can't even conceive of anyone who has began to genuinely enter stage green and understands the spiral to actually be racist in the traditional stage-blue (and under) sense of the word. 

Racism is specifically mentioned in this thread. And usually when people speak about racism it is in regards to black people.

And again; comparing racism to handicapped people is an extremely poor comparison. If he was trying to make a meta point he should have clarified further on that because the kind of marginalization handicapped people experience, and the kind that black people experience are vastly different.

And further; it seems you are alluding to 'positive discrimination', which is of course also discrimination. Which, in a way, is even worse than 'negative discrimination' as the positive kind is mostly unconscious discrimination. They engage in racism, but aren't even aware they are doing so.

Edited April 28, 2022 by vizual

[Truth-Seeker]

2 hours ago, vizual said:

Racism is specifically mentioned in this thread. And usually when people speak about racism it is in regards to black people.

And again; comparing racism to handicapped people is an extremely poor comparison. If he was trying to make a meta point he should have clarified further on that because the kind of marginalization handicapped people experience, and the kind that black people experience are vastly different.

And further; it seems you are alluding to 'positive discrimination', which is of course also discrimination. Which, in a way, is even worse than 'negative discrimination' as the positive kind is mostly unconscious discrimination. They engage in racism, but aren't even aware they are doing so.

This must be how Jordan Peterson felt when he was being interviewed by Cathy Newman. 

"Inequality against the Handicapped is mended by more inequality in stage green"

Cathy, "So you're saying that black people are comparable to handicapped people? THAT'S RACIST"

Jordan: "Wait what? No, that's not what I said"

Racism being mentioned in the thread does not mean that we are talking about black people. In fact, the first post is talking about IRAQI PEOPLE. But you projecting the idea of black people after we mentioned racism just shows me that you are most likely an American and have this Americo-centric point of view where you assume that "racism = black people" which you need to work on. 

Not only did you project this idea, you also added another projection, that us talking about inequality against the handicapped means we are comparing black people to those who are handicapped, we never did such a comparison and we never brought up black people. That projection probably happened from you thinking that racism and inequality are synonyms in an unconscious sense. Like, you know they aren't synonyms on a conscious level but when you skimmed quickly, you assumed us talking about inequality means we are still talking about racism (which is only a form of on inequality) and this brought black people on the line for you. 

And yes, Leo was alluding to positive discrimination, and no it isn't worse than negative discrimination. Yes, it is unconscious but in no way can you imagine that something like affirmative action is worse than Jim Crow laws...it's bad yes, but nowhere near worse than negative discrimination. 

It is unconcious but coming from good intention and the damage it does is literally trivial in comparison to negative discrimination. 

Also, I want to mention that I am not attacking you nor do I think you are actually antagonizing us! I sincerely think you had good intention but I am pointing out certain biases and misunderstandings and projections that you made and need to be careful of. These can came from an Americo-centric point of view. That can easily be worked on by watching documentaries of racism in other parts of the world or reading books or watching Leo's videos because I love how he expands on his channel on examples that extend beyond America. 

[whatishappeningtome]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Green tends to overcorrect on racism. Green is motivated to correct inequality, which ironically requires treating people unequaly.

Handicapped people get special treatment. Is this right or wrong? Who is to say how much special treatment is too much? What if we gave every handicapped person a helicopter, would that be fair or unfair? Who gets to say?

I do feel bad for handicapped people though when I see a newly designed suburb and the sidewalks are not suitable for them. I think of the elderly, and all those in wheelchairs. I think being more woke about this issue won't do anything but good to society 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, whatishappeningtome said:

I do feel bad for handicapped people though when I see a newly designed suburb and the sidewalks are not suitable for them. I think of the elderly, and all those in wheelchairs. I think being more woke about this issue won't do anything but good to society 

Usually woke is harmless, but it can go too far and even become harmful at extremes.

[Yog]

What is up with you guys. Comparison is not equating.

Things can be 1% alike and you can still make the comparison. A comparison between a fork and a sun is just as legit as a comparison between a black person and a handicapped person. It is what it is, a comparison based on sameness/difference.

I don't get why everything has to match as close as 1:1 to make comparisons valid.

[SeaMonster]

Green is fine in small doses.  You need some environmental regulations and accommodations for the disabled, e.g.  At a certain point Green becomes a monster that destroys everything in its path, making a society unlivable.  It is notoriously bad at large scale social engineering, like attempting to mandate equality of outcomes (which exists virtually nowhere in nature.)

Edited April 29, 2022 by SeaMonster

[Bobby_2021]

In real world you cannot use colours to judge something.

A murder commited by green or blue person must be held to the same standards and punishments.

Likewise, we must focus on the behaviour first. If the behaviour is stupid, then it is worth condemning. Bad behaviour is bad. And there should be no confusion in it.

People here hold spiral dynamics as a dogma as if it is some objective yard stick for reality. It's a model for sense making and that's it.

[Bobby_2021]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Usually woke is harmless, but it can go too far and even become harmful at extremes.

Wokes are good at justifying their mis behaviour. Since everything they are doing is it to correct racism/bigotry, people are supposed/expected to forgive their behaviour and treat any destruction as collateral damage.

[SeaMonster]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Wokes are good at justifying their mis behaviour. Since everything they are doing is it to correct racism/bigotry, people are supposed/expected to forgive their behaviour and treat any destruction as collateral damage.

I think this is called "claiming the moral high ground." If you simply claim you're on the side of The Good, then of course any collateral damage becomes justifiable (i.e. "you can't break an omelet without making eggs.")  This is a common motif in witchhunts and moral panics throughout history.