Zizzero

Member
  • Content count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zizzero

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Switzerland
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

529 profile views
  1. As I said; TYT is part blue, part green. TYT and related individuals and their close mindedness, arrogance, hypocrisy, level of bullying and identity politics are not what I would call progressive and definitely not what I would call high quality or conscious. I see them as part of the regressive left. But you and I have had similar arguments before on this forum, so I don't want to derail this for any longer. I believe I made my points clear.
  2. Wilber actually agrees with me that a portion of green regressed to blue.
  3. Yes. But green does not demonize people; it demonizes stages and ideas. Blue is "you are part of the others, so you're evil and I wont even talk and I will definitely not listen to you". Green is "you are part of the others, but we are in this world together. We are all the same species."
  4. Green is not tribalistic. A green left-winger would not demonize Trump supporters, he would rather perceive them like children; as someone who needs help and guidance. Green builds bridges, it does not divide. If I'd call you deplorable, I would not be building a bridge between the two of us. Green is relativistic and humble, not combative and absolutist; that's blue. TYT is a perfect example of green ideas regressing into blue and being held as absolut truths.
  5. It's tribalism and absolutism. They are blue/green to be more precise. But there is definitely an "us against them" mentality and black and white thinking - that is stage blue. They are, ironically, stage blue about stage green topics.
  6. Calling Trump supporters deplorables is not green; that's blue. I'm all for stage green sources, but calling blue high quality - nope
  7. Don't the Young Turks call Trump supporters "deplorables"? Also, people like Sam Seder or Michael Brooks? Seriously? What do any of these have to do with values like spirituality, open-mindedness, and above all: LOVE? How do they pass just a single one of the criteria for what makes a political analysis "high quality"? This is getting ridiculous. Honestly Leo, at this point it would be more honest if you were to drop labels like "high quality political analysis" and "conscious politics". These are just marketing tools to sell your opinions. Things sell better when you say that your political analysis is not just a normal political analysis; they are a conscious one. What is your goal here, Leo? You clearly hold people to different standards based on where they are on the political spectrum. You either have massive blind spots when it comes to politics or you aren't honest about your intentions. There's some scary "the end justifies the means" vibe in here.
  8. 100000% Me being from Switzerland, When I started to follow US-politics I remember I was very surprised to hear that abortions are so controversial in the US because in Europe there are not a lot of pro-life people. I was pro-choice all my life and I always found it kind of commonsensical to be pro-choice. But what shocked me even more is that even many of the pro-choice people in the US seem to go too extreme; I mean there are a lot of people who support late term abortions which is something almost no one would ever even consider in Europe. Following the politics of a few countries I really came to appreciate Switzerland actually. A month ago I saw a political talk show in Swiss tv about climate change and the coming election in Switzerland. A social democrat, a free market liberal and a conservative sat at the same table and they couldn't agree on anything. The social democrat was like: "Climate change is the biggest problem, we all must act quickly!", the liberal was like: "yeah, I would support some taxes to help the climate. But let's have the market solve it" and the conservative said: "Switzerland is already doing more than anyone else. Let's not hurt our economy even more because of some unproven theory". These members of parliament could not disagree more, yet they talked to one another like colleagues. Even when it got heated, you could feel the mutual respect for one another. It was so refreshing to see this. What do you think is the reason for this binary nature in US politics? think this has a lot to do with the political system of the United States. The winner-takes-all principle, having a two-party system and only an indirect democracy creates a very game-like nature of politics. To compare it with Switzerland which has a system where both the seats in the government and the parliament are distributed proportionally to what people voted and the people can directly vote yes or no to changes in the constitution or the law; if either political side wants to change something, they have to find some sort of middle ground to have a majority that supports this change in policy. Demonization of the enemy is not a successful strategy. Also, because Swiss people vote for or against policies and not for or against people, the political discourse is more focused on the topic, rather than name-calling. Your post actually just inspired me to think that what the US needs more than good policies is a movement that actively wants to change the political system of its country. The US might have the worst political system I know of in the western world. (Of course such a change of constitution would never be supported by the US population, though)
  9. I argued for why the man in the video and I believe Trump was elected. This post of yours appears to be a plea against Trump. So, I'm not sure in what way your response was actually related to what I said. Nevertheless, your post carries a vibe of exactly what I mean when I write "the Democrates still haven't figured that stuff out". Basically a mentality of; "Trump is dishonest about what his motivations are and his voters are unfortunately not as smart as me to see through the facade." Just look at how you imply that the issues you used as example in any way have obvious solutions to them. If you honestly study something like abortions, you'll realize that what a good abortion law looks like is not at all obvious. The left is currently doing all they can to lose again in 2020 as most of them still see their failure in 2016 as a result of there just being too many devils around. But why wouldn't they do that? Life lives itself more comfortably when you're riding the high horse.
  10. Summary of the video: His claim is that Trump got elected because the left doesn't give a shit about the American working class and their everyday-concerns. His analysis seems accurate to me. Don't call it surface-level; the Democrates still haven't figured that stuff out. People don't like it when you tell them what to think and question their ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Trump's approach was simple: I'm not better than normal people (shown even by his use of language; he talks like normal people, not like a politician or academic) and I will fight for the political issues that matter to you - the people. I will not ignore you. Trump was a breath of fresh and not another politician who, so many Trump-voters found, ignores them.
  11. "The only solution to polarization is integrating polarities" Wilber: "Or war" lol. society is fucked
  12. Even though a parallel-thread (top 5 cities and SD) has some talk going on about feminism and toxic masculinity/femininity, I still see this as more fitting here. Also, I'm aware there's a thread about this interview with Eckhart Tolle already, but there wasn't much talk about the content of what Eckhart actually said - An on point political analysis. Wonder how long it takes till someone will call him alt-right for what he said here 12:55 onwards is topic-related
  13. I don't think the fastest road to anything is desire. But I'm not an expert on spiritual things, so I'm not an expert on the big picture connections between judgement and emotions. But sure, when you truly love something you accept it for how it is and treat it with compassion rather than judgement. Judgment seems to me like it fundamentally comes from a place of not-understanding; you don't understand the thing you judge and decide to view it as an error; as something that "he should not have done" for example. More practically speaking when it comes to social interactions: Instead of having a picture in mind of how this other person is supposed to be according to your moral beliefs, give them space to be themselves instead and have empathy and seek to understand them. However, this note is important because that's what nearly every green-person does wrong: Realizing that they are less developed than you does not count as understanding them. Forget this spiral dynamics stuff when talking to people; forget these labels. Don't put people in boxes. You say that you are green or higher, so it should not be news that people aren't evil. Everyone is just trying their best. To put everything I said into one sentence: Treat them like they are your best friend: You know that your best friend has a lot of mistakes to him, but you love him anyway. Also, you don't really care whether a topic is orange or green or turquoise, - me and my best friend we typically tell the same jokes and stories every time when we hang out - you just enjoy the vibe that you and your best friend have together. Just imagine these people were yellow who like to talk about orange topics: there goes your judgement.
  14. @Andrewww There will always be people who will judge you. Time's not worth worrying about that. People judge cause that's what people do. But now, if you want a real challenge it's not just letting go of you judging them for who they are, it's letting go of judging them for judging you - that's when no-judgement gets really difficult. As I said, people are people; they are nothing scary. Just treat them as what they are and not as what you project onto them. No worries, you got this
  15. People can do with their lives whatever they want, it does not matter what you want. What you consider to be "better" might not be better in their eyes. What prevents you from relating to them probably isn't their development, but your judgment of their lack of development. In terms of practical advice, here's what I'd suggest: 1. Let go of your judgement. Treat them as human beings, not as colors. 2. Don't impose your values on them; they have every right to do things differently than you and it doesn't make them bad people. What I mean is this: I rarely drink alcohol. When I go out into nightclubs for example and people ask me why I don't drink, I don't tell them that drinking water is better health-wise and that they probably only drink alcohol to cope with suppressed traumas even though it's probably true. I just tell why I made that decision and don't make a big deal out of it. No one likes teachers and know-betters, rather; people like people who treat them as equals. So, you don't want a clash of values, then don't clash values. However, I'm not saying don't have a spine or your own opinions; just don't lower the vibe of the interaction.