The apolitical label.

[cetus]

@DrugsBunny State your case and carry on. No more no less.

[Oeaohoo]

34 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

You heard it here first, folks; gays are actually a conspiratorial manifestation from the (((globalist elites)))

There have always been and will always be elites: there was an Emperor and a Patrician class in Ancient Rome; there was a Pharoah and High Priests in Ancient Egypt; there was a Shah and Magi in Ancient Persia; there was a Pope, an Emperor and Cardinals in Christian Europe; and so on ad infinitum. This is because human society is a microcosm of Heaven: God is the ultimate Monarch and his servants, which in the Christian tradition at least have been construed as Angels, are the High Priests of this domain.

(Now there is “Dark Brandon” and a priestly caste of Zuckerberg, Bezos and Larry Fink. Bravo to progress! Even on this forum we see the same pattern: Leo has the ultimate authority, the moderators have lesser degrees of authority, and “we the people” have still less).

We can also give a mundane justification for the inevitable existence and dominance of elites: it is much easier for a minority to organise than a majority. A majority is almost always a chaotic mess; a minority can hone in on a shared vision and purpose. Given this easily explainable tendency towards elite dominance, and given that there has always been elites, why would there suddenly be no elites today? Given that we live in a globalised society, what else can they be but globalist elites?

I am not claiming that they are all Jewish, as your triple brackets imply. The only thing which could have given you that impression was a light-hearted joke about the “Christian” Peterson teaming up with the “Jewish” Shapiro to form a true “Judeo-Christian” alliance!

44 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

The pride flag is the covert symbolism for desanctifying humanity.

If nothing else, it is a placeholder for an identity that was supposed to be instigated by culture, religion and tradition. It is the flag of the secularised world whose “religion” is individual self-expression. To a certain extent, whether it has been promoted by an elite or has emerged naturally to fill the void left by the death of God is unimportant.

54 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

I'm not being dramatic, but your language is indistinguishable from that of Q-Anon, and "globalist", in the context you're using it, is nothing other than an anti-semitic dog whistle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage

So… When “right-wing” people talk about globalism it is a totally imaginary conspiracy theory but when left-wing people talk about it is the beautiful and inevitable future that we are openly advocating for and bringing about? Talk about gaslighting.

These are the games of the new “priestly” caste.

57 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Ban 'em all Leo. Let them pursue consciousness work with the many tools this forum provides, but don't allow them to further delude themselves into lunacy while subjecting the rest of us to their bigotry. 

This is exactly what I had described: in this final form of conflict, the opposing side are not enemies but “lunatics”. The capacity for interpersonal relationships has been so diminished by the solipsistic world of postmodern hyperreality that anyone who diverges from an accepted narrative can only be insane.

[Raptorsin7]

@DrugsBunny LOL. Good luck

[DocWatts]

49 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

So… When “right-wing” people talk about globalism it is a totally imaginary conspiracy theory but when left-wing people talk about it is the beautiful and inevitable future that we are openly advocating for and bringing about? Talk about gaslighting.

The difference between the Left wing and Right wing critiques of globalization is the difference between critiqueing something from Below rather than from Above.

Those critiquing from Below (ie Right wing critiques of globalism in this instance) will tend to misconstrue sociological critique that's rooted in systems theory as a Conspiracy Theory, simply because they don't understand the former.

It's really not all that different from the ways that the Right wing misunderstands something like Critical Race Theory, which they misconstrue as a plot by Leftists to make white people feel bad about their history and culture, versus what it really is (I'd a systems level theory of structural inequality, where whether or not individuals are personally racist is entirely besides the point).

Edited August 15, 2022 by DocWatts

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

35 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

There have always been and will always be elites: there was an Emperor and a Patrician class in Ancient Rome; there was a Pharoah and High Priests in Ancient Egypt; there was a Shah and Magi in Ancient Persia; there was a Pope, an Emperor and Cardinals in Christian Europe; and so on ad infinitum. This is because human society is a microcosm of Heaven: God is the ultimate Monarch and his servants, which in the Christian tradition at least have been construed as Angels, are the High Priests of this domain.

(Now there is “Dark Brandon” and a priestly caste of Zuckerberg, Bezos and Larry Fink. Bravo to progress! Even on this forum we see the same pattern: Leo has the ultimate authority, the moderators have lesser degrees of authority, and “we the people” have still less).

We can also give a mundane justification for the inevitable existence and dominance of elites: it is much easier for a minority to organise than a majority. A majority is almost always a chaotic mess; a minority can hone in on a shared vision and purpose. Given this easily explainable tendency towards elite dominance, and given that there has always been elites, why would there suddenly be no elites today? Given that we live in a globalised society, what else can they be but globalist elites?

I am not claiming that they are all Jewish, as your triple brackets imply. The only thing which could have given you that impression was a light-hearted joke about the “Christian” Peterson teaming up with the “Jewish” Shapiro to form a true “Judeo-Christian” alliance!

If nothing else, it is a placeholder for an identity that was supposed to be instigated by culture, religion and tradition. It is the flag of the secularised world whose “religion” is individual self-expression. To a certain extent, whether it has been promoted by an elite or has emerged naturally to fill the void left by the death of God is unimportant.

So… When “right-wing” people talk about globalism it is a totally imaginary conspiracy theory but when left-wing people talk about it is the beautiful and inevitable future that we are openly advocating for and bringing about? Talk about gaslighting.

These are the games of the new “priestly” caste.

This is exactly what I had described: in this final form of conflict, the opposing side are not enemies but “lunatics”. The capacity for interpersonal relationships has been so diminished by the solipsistic world of postmodern hyperreality that anyone who diverges from an accepted narrative can only be insane.

   I know that you have segued with that user to discussing elite groups and hierarchies, but let's move back into the main topic again, which is, is it justified to label a username with 'apolitical' when their posts are written in a 'toxic' fashion? Is it more accurate to show 'toxic' instead of 'apolitical', to honor the definitions of those words? If not, do we use a color coding way instead? or are we better off not attaching them labels and just temporarily block them from accessing this sub forum?

   My reasoning, is that if you decided to attach a label, to a username, that is permanent, and is visible, then I should've also made warnings visible on the profile as well beforehand, to be consistent. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Or is there an alternative? 

   BTW, for those reading, I like Actualized.org and the forum. It's a nicer place than reddit or twitter and other online forums and websites. Yes, there's a hierarchy here, but it's way healthier compared to syndicates, cults, ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. On average, we can have pretty good discussions here, provided that we are not close minded, dogmatic, and preach our perspectives, left or right of the political spectrum.

   How do you all feel, if you're  involved with politics, with the word 'apolitical'?

[DrugsBunny]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Oeaohoo

   I know that you have segued with that user to discussing elite groups and hierarchies, but let's move back into the main topic again, which is, is it justified to label a username with 'apolitical' when their posts are written in a 'toxic' fashion?

Your question has already been answered. It would seem that you're not willing to accept the obvious answer to the inquiry you've made. 

Your mistake is assuming the word "apolitical" can't be used in a less rigid context. In this context, apolitical doesn't mean that the user is not interested in politics, as you're insisting it must mean. It means, within the domain of this forum, the user is literally apolitical in the sense that they are not permitted to engage in politics. What else would you call that? 

This isn't even a profound observation, nor a necessary scrutiny by any means; you're just demanding that your semantical usage of the word "apolitical" be the exclusive definition that everyone else uses. 

[Oeaohoo]

20 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

The difference between the Left wing and Right wing critiques of globalization is the difference between critiqueing something from Below rather than from Above.

In a way what you have said is besides the point. Globalism either exists or it doesn’t; it can’t simultaneously be a kooky conspiracy theory and a reality.

And… Of course. That is the natural interpretation of those who assume that: a) mankind is progressing, therefore globalism, since it came later, is more advanced than nationalism; or b) the more people, and even groups of people, contained under a shared system, the better. Both of these are certainly questionable assumptions.

19 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I know that you have segued with that user to discussing elite groups and hierarchies, but let's move back into the main topic again, which is, is it justified to label a username with 'apolitical' when their posts are written in a 'toxic' fashion?

I agree with Mr. Bunny in that it seems your question has already been answered.

21 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is it more accurate to show 'toxic' instead of 'apolitical', to honor the definitions of those words?

Haha, that would certainly be more honest. Seems a bit ridiculous to have a TOXIC tag on a forum user though.

[Loba]

4 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Haha, that would certainly be more honest. Seems a bit ridiculous to have a TOXIC tag on a forum user though.

Bahahaha! 
I'm cracking up so much right now.  I would still be laughing, too, if someone was stuck with that label, every time they'd post it'd be such an 'lol'
Let's just slap toxic on 'em and be done with it.

Someone ask Yarco how he feels about that.

[DocWatts]

46 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

In a way what you have said is besides the point. Globalism either exists or it doesn’t; it can’t simultaneously be a kooky conspiracy theory and a reality.

The difference in how the issue is framed (and thus understood) from differing perspectives, and then how we are to evaluate the relative validity of those perspectives, is exactly the issue at heart.

As far as my assumptions, I'll fully admit to being biased towards finding dialectical systems thinking on the whole to be more Truthful than Nationalism. Not because Nationalism came earlier, but because Nationalism is a far more partial and ultimately selfish way of looking at the world.

Edited August 16, 2022 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

@Oeaohoo Leo once said he'd have no issue shooting people on site if they open carried during protests etc. That's the level of wisdom and compassion this kind of policy is coming from. 

This stuff will sort itself, but I know the feeling of wanting to speak up against obvious nonsense.

[Oeaohoo]

34 minutes ago, Loba said:

Let's just slap toxic on 'em and be done with it.

22 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

As far as my assumptions, I'll fully admit to being biased towards thinking that not all perspectives are equally Truthful. And furthermore that a broader and less partial perspective is inherently more valuable than a more partial and limited perspective.

You see, I am not convinced that globalism is really a broader and less partial perspective. If I may be permitted a short explanation…

To me it seems that the various forms of nationalism were a last stand of form against formlessness. As a last stand, they admittedly had an exaggerated and one-sided character. This character is seen in those aspects of nationalism which are tendentiously highlighted by progressive and anti-national forces: an unduly low regard of the female sex, other ethnic groups, and other sexual proclivities being the main complaints. However, this overlooks that even the nation still served in some way to facilitate the individual in their engagement and participation with the world around them. With the advent of globalism, this was jettisoned, because caring about everybody is practically the same as caring about nobody. It is totally impractical to impose globalism on people because in the vast majority of cases, they do not have any way to act upon or change the globe; after all, most people can’t even change themselves! This explains the paradox that while, on the one hand, we live in a globalised society, we also live in the society of the “atomised individual”: the two are synonymous. Globalism is therefore something closer to Nietzsche’s “cold brute”, a snarling monster of narcissistic individualism masquerading as a system of universal compassion, and as such it is the final triumph of what is formless over what gives form.

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

1 hour ago, DrugsBunny said:

Your question has already been answered. It would seem that you're not willing to accept the obvious answer to the inquiry you've made. 

Your mistake is assuming the word "apolitical" can't be used in a less rigid context. In this context, apolitical doesn't mean that the user is not interested in politics, as you're insisting it must mean. It means, within the domain of this forum, the user is literally apolitical in the sense that they are not permitted to engage in politics. What else would you call that? 

This isn't even a profound observation, nor a necessary scrutiny by any means; you're just demanding that your semantical usage of the word "apolitical" be the exclusive definition that everyone else uses. 

   Ah, okay I see, my question has been answer. So this thread is done as far as I am concerned, and should be locked then.

   Goodnight, it was a good discussion. You have what you wanted @R&NAnarcho. GG.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Tyler Robinson]

I'd say the word Npolitical would be more appropriate.. It could mean not applicable to the political section.

I don't agree with the word toxic at all. It would be derogatory and kinda shaming a person.. Not okay. Even if a person's behavior is not fine. It's still not appropriate to shame someone. 

You're not spiritual if you think writing 3 pages on a person's character is okay, you should be out of this community. 

 

[gettoefl]

13 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I'd say the word Npolitical would be more appropriate.. It could mean not applicable to the political section.

I don't agree with the word toxic at all. It would be derogatory and kinda shaming a person.. Not okay. Even if a person's behavior is not fine. It's still not appropriate to shame someone. 

You're not spiritual if you think writing 3 pages on a person's character is okay, you should be out of this community. 

 

seems like censored or restricted is the correct word

if you fail to toe the progressive line, we don't want to listen to your musings

[Danioover9000]

14 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I'd say the word Npolitical would be more appropriate.. It could mean not applicable to the political section.

I don't agree with the word toxic at all. It would be derogatory and kinda shaming a person.. Not okay. Even if a person's behavior is not fine. It's still not appropriate to shame someone. 

You're not spiritual if you think writing 3 pages on a person's character is okay, you should be out of this community. 

 

 

52 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

seems like censored or restricted is the correct word

if you fail to toe the progressive line, we don't want to listen to your musings

   Npolitical sounds like a much better word to be labelled by. However, because we currently can't see if you're banned or had warnings, why should we label you a certain statues, make that label visible, but not make the warning strikes/ban strikes on you visible too?

   I think it's better to not label if possible, as it stays consistent with warnings and bans being not visible to normal users. What do you think?

[gettoefl]

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 

   Npolitical sounds like a much better word to be labelled by. However, because we currently can't see if you're banned or had warnings, why should we label you a certain statues, make that label visible, but not make the warning strikes/ban strikes on you visible too?

   I think it's better to not label if possible, as it stays consistent with warnings and bans being not visible to normal users. What do you think?

it's too political for me in that i don't follow forum dynamics and discord ... has this user self labelled or has the label been imposed

[supremeyingyang]

On topic: It's not that big of a loss to not read / post in the politics section. I don't want to hurt anyone, but it's clearly not conscious politics and it's by far lowest quality forum here. If there wasn't a rare gem here and there I would have left a long time ago.

 

Off topic: How can a man release such good content but then attract in his forum THIS audience? Not the first time I'm asking myself if I come here to grow or if it's drags me down. The energy that sense here is wild, chaotic, unfocused and it's distracting. I'm leaving again, I'm curious how this'll go

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by supremeyingyang

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

However, this overlooks that even the nation still served in some way to facilitate the individual in their engagement and participation with the world around them. With the advent of globalism, this was jettisoned, because caring about everybody is practically the same as caring about nobody.

 

The question is, given a high level awareness  (in this context this means, that you can reflect and self reflect, and can feel and see the suffering of others, and how one's actions impact the other parts of the world and seeing that you as an invidivudal, you are not really just an individual, you are not just part of your country, but you are the citizen of Earth and your country couldn't really live or thrive without all the other parts)   which valuesystem should we use, and why?

16 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

 It is totally impractical to impose globalism on people because in the vast majority of cases, they do not have any way to act upon or change the globe

This is a fair point, but there are ways to make it work, this can't be an excuse why not to be a globalist and care about more and more things. If we see ourselves from a globalist standpoint, we can get a more accurate image of whats happening, what affects what, and paradoxically, with globalism you can have the ablility to make the biggest progress and the ability to solve really complex and hard problems. You can't solve complex and hard problems when you have rivalrous dynamics between multiple nations (where a country's  ability to survive or to thrive is based on fucking you over, scamming you, stealing from you, or manipulating you to get what it want and to survive as a little finite self [or in this case nation], while not recognizing that in the long run, fucking any country or part over will come back and bite back in the ass). 

On the other hand, if we have globalism, thats when we can have real agency to try to solve global problems. There is a reason why nowadays we talk  more and more about global problems not local problems. The very reason why we have global problems, is because everyone is focused on the parts and not the whole. If you only need to care about the local and not the global, then even if you had the ability to fix things or to solve one part of a global problem you won't do it, unless you will be incentivised to do so using low consciousness tools( either via forcing you to do or manipulating you --> so low consciousness tools have to be used and you won't act unless it directly affects your country).

We need to recognise and be okay with the fact, that all the finite parts are interconnected and each and every part affects all the other. 

16 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

 It is totally impractical to impose globalism on people because in the vast majority of cases, they do not have any way to act upon or change the globe

You don't need to change the globe yourself, thats a wrong way to view it. If you are a roof builder and you only good at building and reparing roofs, you wouldn't say that just because that person or that team can't build a whole house they shouldn't build or repair roofs. 

 

The point is to act on things that you can directly influence, while keeping in mind how your local actions affects the global. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@gettoefl

1 hour ago, gettoefl said:

it's too political for me in that i don't follow forum dynamics and discord ... has this user self labelled or has the label been imposed

   Users that apparently posted in a toxic manner in this sub forum are reported, then after some reviewing, are given the 'apolitical' label by the admin/mod, and then are banned for some time. It's not self imposed, but given upon the user.

   At this scale, to me it's office politics/online politics dynamics, rather than at higher scales like mainstream politics.

[Danioover9000]

@supremeyingyang

55 minutes ago, supremeyingyang said:

On topic: It's not that big of a loss to not read / post in the politics section. I don't want to hurt anyone, but it's clearly not conscious politics and it's by far lowest quality forum here. If there wasn't a rare gem here and there I would have left a long time ago.

 

Off topic: How can a man release such good content but then attract in his forum THIS audience? Not the first time I'm asking myself if I come here to grow or if it's drags me down. The energy that sense here is wild, chaotic, unfocused and it's distracting. I'm leaving again, I'm curious how this'll go

 

  Is it a temporary ban then? Does the label 'apolitical' temporary, or permanent? The main issue to me is just that the labelling is inconsistent to it's definition, as you have to mix in the definitions of the toxic and being toxic to make the word 'apolitical' mean more inside this online space than outside were it means something else. I'd rather not label because warning strikes are not visible to other users, so why label?