Simple test to check whether Leo is biased against Trump

[Ajax]

Actions not people should be Judged. When we lose that we lose our civility.

It's about setting a standard for all people.

Many have lost their way when it comes to this topic.

Otherwise I am very impressed how deep and expansive people are regarding other subjects.

 

May the journey for Truth be fruitful and prosperous. LOVE

Edited June 27, 2023 by Ajax

[Danioover9000]

@Ajax

31 minutes ago, Ajax said:

Actions not people should be Judged. When we lose that we lose our civility.

It's about setting a standard for all people.

Many have lost their way when it comes to this topic.

Otherwise I am very impressed how deep and expansive people are regarding other subjects.

 

May the journey for Truth be fruitful and prosperous. LOVE

   I agree, just don't get mind slayed by Donald Trump and con artists like him and we're all good.

[Ajax]

29 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Ajax

   I agree, just don't get mind slayed by Donald Trump and con artists like him and we're all good.

I think it is much better to attack the actions of someone rather than the person.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing something that a person did or didn't do. Like it is totally ok to criticize Trump for spreading lies and for his criminal actions regarding classified documents that are a serious threat to national security. It is fine to say he belongs in jail for sexual assaults.

This is being objective. This is using reason and logic. This is being fair and impartial.

However, criticizing him as a person. That is demonizing. That opens the door to toxic behavior, prejudice, hate, and all kind of negative side affect. Such as mob mentality. It just invites irrationally.

The problem with irrationally is that it completely severs and communication. Without communication, you can't change minds. When you can't change minds you have an adversarial dynamic. With adversarial viewpoints, you have self righteous attitudes, blame, conflict and hate.

Now, if you can have a civil discussion about the evil things Trump has done, like sexual assault, it helps open communication lines and might change minds. As opposed to demonizing Trump, If I was a Trump supporter and you were comparing him to the Devil well then you are making me feel wrong, by implication you are making me seem/feel evil for believing in Trump. So now I have to defend him, I am now totally unwilling to listen to what you have to say.

If someone is judging you, would you rather being for your actions or you as a person?

 

[Danioover9000]

@Ajax

2 hours ago, Ajax said:

I think it is much better to attack the actions of someone rather than the person.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing something that a person did or didn't do. Like it is totally ok to criticize Trump for spreading lies and for his criminal actions regarding classified documents that are a serious threat to national security. It is fine to say he belongs in jail for sexual assaults.

This is being objective. This is using reason and logic. This is being fair and impartial.

However, criticizing him as a person. That is demonizing. That opens the door to toxic behavior, prejudice, hate, and all kind of negative side affect. Such as mob mentality. It just invites irrationally.

The problem with irrationally is that it completely severs and communication. Without communication, you can't change minds. When you can't change minds you have an adversarial dynamic. With adversarial viewpoints, you have self righteous attitudes, blame, conflict and hate.

Now, if you can have a civil discussion about the evil things Trump has done, like sexual assault, it helps open communication lines and might change minds. As opposed to demonizing Trump, If I was a Trump supporter and you were comparing him to the Devil well then you are making me feel wrong, by implication you are making me seem/feel evil for believing in Trump. So now I have to defend him, I am now totally unwilling to listen to what you have to say.

If someone is judging you, would you rather being for your actions or you as a person?

 

   IMO, based on developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development, states of being and becoming, other lines of development in life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated in upbringing and culture, and self biases and other biases I'd rather get judged and assessed based on BOTH my actions, speeches and my character, not one over the other.

   Yes, it's okay to give constructive critique or general more of an attacking critic of a person's actions here when they break laws or are immoral and harm and are dangerous to other people's well beings, but so is critiquing the person himself or herself as well, the stem from which these questionable actions com from too.

   I'd be careful with heavily appealing to logos, to being objective, using reason and logic, and being fair and impartial. These appeals are disingenuous because these appeals are used by the ego mind to justify and defend it's egoic takes and biases against other egos trying to threaten it's own SURVIVAL. Like the term 'facts over feelings.', this doesn't mean FACTS ARE SUPERIOR TO FEELINGS, BUT RATHER FEELINGS ARE SUPERIOR TO FACTS, THAT FACTS ARE PARTIAL AND FEELINGS ARE TOTAL, that feelings and the ego coopt and use facts all the time to defend itself or attack other biases.

   Even if there's a problem with irrationality, that irrationality is the foundation of the UNIVERSE, and for the most part that irrationality is the longest time spent under evolution, from which we only recently discovered logic around the time of Aristotle, or Plato. That's just about 1,500 years ago the western society, or the Greek philosophers have discovered and formulized logic into some format, that later on gets refined during the renaissance and the industrial Era. Also this point of irrationality severing communications isn't quite true, as animals that are far more irrational can still communicate with it's own family, and even to other animal species. Even crazy humans can communicate despite the cognitive differences or challenges.

   The main problem with some, not all not all not all but some, Trump supporters, is like they're very similar to victims of con artists or scammers, or victims of hostage takers and terrorists. They'll suffer all kinds of cognitive dissonance and biases, like Stockholm syndrome, survivor's guilt  and other cognitive twists that makes the perpetrators appear heroic or meaningful in the victim's minds. HOW CAN WE HAVE A RATIONAL DISCOURSE WITH SOME PEOPLE LIKE THESE? So, there's a list of methods that are feminine and are slow and circular, and then there's some masculine ways of being direct and blunt, like telling them directly that they're victims of a con and scam, that Daddy Trump mind slayed your mind into an emotional state that allows him to win you're vote. Each feminine and masculine approaches may have their pros and cons, but for some the masculine approach is the best way to shake up a victim's mind into facing actual reality, and not be in this circle of lies it tells itself just to avoid admitting that it was conned and scammed and to not face the feelings of shame.

   Sometimes telling the truth directly is the only way to get some of these people to wake up, sometimes too much sugar coating isn't good.

[Danioover9000]

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Ajax

   IMO, based on developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development, states of being and becoming, other lines of development in life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated in upbringing and culture, and self biases and other biases I'd rather get judged and assessed based on BOTH my actions, speeches and my character, not one over the other.

   Yes, it's okay to give constructive critique or general more of an attacking critic of a person's actions here when they break laws or are immoral and harm and are dangerous to other people's well beings, but so is critiquing the person himself or herself as well, the stem from which these questionable actions com from too.

   I'd be careful with heavily appealing to logos, to being objective, using reason and logic, and being fair and impartial. These appeals are disingenuous because these appeals are used by the ego mind to justify and defend it's egoic takes and biases against other egos trying to threaten it's own SURVIVAL. Like the term 'facts over feelings.', this doesn't mean FACTS ARE SUPERIOR TO FEELINGS, BUT RATHER FEELINGS ARE SUPERIOR TO FACTS, THAT FACTS ARE PARTIAL AND FEELINGS ARE TOTAL, that feelings and the ego coopt and use facts all the time to defend itself or attack other biases.

   Even if there's a problem with irrationality, that irrationality is the foundation of the UNIVERSE, and for the most part that irrationality is the longest time spent under evolution, from which we only recently discovered logic around the time of Aristotle, or Plato. That's just about 1,500 years ago the western society, or the Greek philosophers have discovered and formulized logic into some format, that later on gets refined during the renaissance and the industrial Era. Also this point of irrationality severing communications isn't quite true, as animals that are far more irrational can still communicate with it's own family, and even to other animal species. Even crazy humans can communicate despite the cognitive differences or challenges.

   The main problem with some, not all not all not all but some, Trump supporters, is like they're very similar to victims of con artists or scammers, or victims of hostage takers and terrorists. They'll suffer all kinds of cognitive dissonance and biases, like Stockholm syndrome, survivor's guilt  and other cognitive twists that makes the perpetrators appear heroic or meaningful in the victim's minds. HOW CAN WE HAVE A RATIONAL DISCOURSE WITH SOME PEOPLE LIKE THESE? So, there's a list of methods that are feminine and are slow and circular, and then there's some masculine ways of being direct and blunt, like telling them directly that they're victims of a con and scam, that Daddy Trump mind slayed your mind into an emotional state that allows him to win you're vote. Each feminine and masculine approaches may have their pros and cons, but for some the masculine approach is the best way to shake up a victim's mind into facing actual reality, and not be in this circle of lies it tells itself just to avoid admitting that it was conned and scammed and to not face the feelings of shame.

   Sometimes telling the truth directly is the only way to get some of these people to wake up, sometimes too much sugar coating isn't good.

   Also, not just appeals to pathos and ethos as frequent, but of all the appeals and fallacies, appeals to logos is the most dangerous IMO as it's considered widely acceptable in consensus reality that LOGOS can't be coopted by ego or FEELINGS..

[Ajax]

 

Thank you so much for your very well thought out and beautifully articulated response.
 

Here is the problem: I see very little progress in any kind of adversarial paradigm. Why do they exist and persist. To people like us, who view things as holistically, it is unpleasant to say the least. It seems like the main approach is to use overwhelming force to beat the opposition into submission.  Is mixing Truth and Force, an efficacious and workable solution in the long run.

I understand your points that affirm that there is no way we can work with these people, they are too damn stubborn or stupid. This is a hard pill to swallow, and the need to have some idea, some strategy for everyone to work together. But I see no practical way of doing so.

The only option via I can see is some way to communicate truth to them in a way they can understand. I understand that feminine compassion is through confidence through acceptance and love and nurturing and masculine compassion is through pressure, coercion, dominance and submission. However, I highly question whether either of these delivery systems are an adequate vestibule to get the job done.

The overall approach that comes to mind, for me is through refraining from rancor and shaming and through the more feminine approach of using consciousness to recognize that we are the same and want the same things from a spiritual meta view. I do acknowledge the fallacies of Aristotelian logic. Yet, what is the end game here, what are we doing? Intimation, coercion… I can’t understand it. It seems barbaric. It feels like the conscious will lose some consciousness and become more barbaric and the lower conscious side will become less conscious due to being pounded into submission and not become more conscious and become even more unruly and at the same time if one is able to tear away their willpower, another consequence is they could become more robotic and less creative and productive. Would you walk me through the process, it is most complex.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Ajax

[Ajax]

I understand that SD Red can mainly responds to submitting to authority. SD responds to community, however, the community is based on shared values such as religion and family values, and if they feel that these values are being attacked it they become more fortified and resistant and SD Orange... well many of them are like you F with my money you F with my life. Plus many SD were born in the 80's and become fearful of the very nebulous and rather strange and abstract family and gender ideals and appear to be allying with SD Blue more... what are your thoughts on that?

[Leo Gura]

In the case of Trump the problem is not his actions but the core of the man himself is utterly rotten. Any good actions from him are just a dangerous masking of the monster underneath. That's what bad character means. No amount of pointing out some of his good actions will ever compensate for his rotten character.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Ajax]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the case of Trump the problem is not his actions but the core of the man himself is utterly rotten. Any good actions from him are just a dangerous masking of the monster underneath. That's what bad character means. No amount of pointing out some of his good actions will ever compensate for his rotten character.

Thanks for the clarification. The fighter feature is still not developed in me. I am a bit soft-hearted 

[Princess Arabia]

24 minutes ago, Ajax said:

25 minutes ago, Ajax said:

Thanks for the clarification. The fighter feature is still not developed in me. I am a bit soft-hearted 

Get into that cage with the Orangutan, you will quickly develop it. 

[Ajax]

LOL! that certainly is a quick solution.