Zizzero

These are precisely the considerations that should occur within the realm of politics in a functioning society. See, the problem with, for example, socialism is not that it’s wrong per se. It is, like any other political ideology, a partial truth. The problem is when all you are is a socialist and you don’t see the necessity of balance. There is no correct solution to these problems; every policy comes at a cost and risk. The left is conscious of the tendency of the powerful to exploit the weak and rig the system. The right is conscious of the need to set the right incentives, allow people to pursue their purpose to the fullest and maximize the positive impact they can have on the world. You are right that “abolishing billionaires” is a slippery slope. In fact, anyone who says things like “billionaires should not exist” or “eat the rich” should watch what he is saying and how dehumanizing these phrases are. The phrasing of one's ideas matters. I think a good start would be if both sides could agree that they need the other to keep them in check. At least people on this forum who peg themselves to be integral thinkers should.

I'm not sure about that. He might be a moral subjectivist intellectually. I believe him that he subscribes to that theory on a rational level. However, he has not embodied moral subjectivism, but universal moral realism. I claim that on an emotional or spiritual level, he is not a subjectivist on morality. Like, he doesn't treat disagreement on moral questions as mere disagreement on preferences. He clearly believes that there is such thing as being right or wrong about politics - and not just about the facts, but about values. I think deep down he does believe that the world he wants to build is an objectively better world, as opposed to just the one he would prefer. One could say on a rational or philosophical level, he is stage orange. And he is capable of rationalizing and explaining his behavior through an orange lense. But he is operating out of a huge blue shadow and that blue shadow is what his shapes his worldview.

I actually think this is a good case study for the negative aspects of stage blue. Moral absolutism: I am right. There is no doubting I am right. Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and there is no reasons for viewpoints other than mine to exist. Authoritarianism and paternalism Tribalism: Us-vs-them-mentality. Anything that helps our side/our goals is good and justified. Dehumanisation of the "others" and thus, a refusal to have empathy with "the others" - police, conservatives However, he is an interesting character. There seems to be some orange; his obsession with scientific data, valuing logic and data higher than feelings, intuition and introspection. And in the literature, consequentialism is associated with orange. I think a better model than SD/Integral Theory is something like Dodson or Hawkin's Levels of Energy. The problem with Vaush, to put it simple, is that he does not operate out of Love. His worldview appears to revolve around a paradigm where people are evil and "out to get you!" and unless we fight the bad guys, they will win. It's a scarcity-mindset. I sense in him a lot of hurt and anger which he now overcompensates with his antagonistic approach to politics. Any time he interacts with someone he deems a political enemy, he is incapable of seeing the human, he merely sees a battle that ought to be won. He is operating out of a destructive energy. People who watch him, supporters or not, seem to feel worse afterwards; scared, angry or proud/narcissistic. I suggest people find better sources.

No one can define for you what your life purpose is. Tell me where I'm wrong. But it sounds like you have an idea; a vision of what would fill you with a sense of meaning. But now you want confirmation by people on here whether that's a good life purpose or realistic or whatever. "What if my plan doesn't work?" Your problem does not appear to me to be lack of life purpose or naivety, but lack of self trust. Stop looking for others to tell you what your destiny is. There will always be people believing what you do is a bad idea. There will always be worries and concerns by you on whether you are on the right track. If you're waiting for this to be different, then you'll be waiting forever. If you believe that you can make this world a better place and you have the desire to do so, then don't limit your potential by waiting for others to give you permission. And honestly, naivety is so underrated. People call you naive, and then you prove them wrong. Go prove people wrong. I believe in you

Careful with that demonization of billionaires and money. It's actually a limiting belief that you connect owning a certain amount of wealth or having a certain amount of success with a form of immorality or lack of character. This will hold you back in life. It'll make it so that if you get too successful, you'll feel guilty about it and self-sabotage. Remember what daddy Jordan Peterson says; not every hierarchy is tyrannical.

Had an interesting discussion with someone about the subject of masculinity and femininity and differences between the genders. I'd like to unpack some of the following questions with you. Curious to hear your thoughts and inputs What are masculinity and femininity? How would you describe and explain it? And I don't mean its content, like "femininity means yin" etc. I mean: Are we talking about energies? If yes; what is an energy? Is it instead merely a tool to categorize the world into two to help us understand it, but there actually is no such thing as femininity? Are masculinity and femininity social constructs that don't describe anything deeper than "masculinity = more prevalent among human males"? Tell me about the following whether you would call them feminine, masculine or neither. And ideally a reason why Being Doing Beauty Ambition Reason/rationality/logic Emotions Anger Autism Mathematics Muscles Drinking beer The color pink Dancing What is the connection between masculinity and the male sex and femininity and the female sex? "Men are more masculine" - what does that mean, exactly and why is that? What is the connection between being male and "being a man"? For example: Leo has two very good videos on his channel named "How To Be A Man" - Are the lessons in this video more important for males? Why? Should every man learn "how to be a man"? Should only men who feel more masculine than feminine learn "how to be a man" or would these men get more out of a "how to be a woman" video? - again goes towards the question above; why it seems especially important for men to embody masculine virtues and vise versa Is a heterosexual relationship healthier or more fulfilling when the man is more in his masculinity and the woman in her femininity? Like, him being the leader and her admiring him. Or is it better when the relationship is more equal and there is no masculine-feminine-dynamic going on? Does it even matter? What is the difference between a man and a woman beyond sex characteristics? No wrong answers here. Feel free to write whatever comes to mind

Love your inputs so far. Good insights

There is a pattern

Sad to see that this forum hasn’t evolved since I left. In fact, it appears to have turned into even more of an echo chamber. I’m assuming that all who disagreed were bullied, shamed or flat out emotionally abused till only the true believers remained. A philosophical circle jerk of likeminded people to rationalize their own superiority. The sight of this paradoxical demonization of ego while having such a high opinion of oneself is filling me with all sorts of uncomfortable emotions. I’m not here to stay. I’m not here to stirr things up. But I believe many people in here are intelligent enough for me to express the simple idea that we must ask ourselves what role we play in all of this. Careful not to waste your life online; the Internet doesn’t show you how the world and the people in it truly are. The pleasure the members of this cult are getting out of ridicule and mockery of «devils» is worrisome. I’m writing this because I assume that the majority of you are living in countries suffering from polarization – particularly among political lines – like the US. There is a time when we have to ask ourselves: How am I contributing to the ills in this world? If your diagnosis of society’s problems is that there aren’t more people like you, then you are part of the problem. If your solution to society’s problems is that “the others” should cease to exists for only the pure hearted and conscious ones to remain – then I urge you to look around and ask yourself if that is truly the path you want to be on. You’re not as unique and special as you think. It doesn’t matter how much work you’ve invested into yourself. If you ever find yourself feeling strong negative emotions towards an individual or a group of individuals or you feel ignorance or even pleasure in seeing others suffer and your framework is one of winning and losing – this is when it gets essential to understand how little it takes for you to contribute to evils you thought only others were capable of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s always a good start to ask yourself: What do I actually know and what do I merely believe to know? This should humble you. Humbleness, I think, is a good direction forward. And I don’t mean fake humbleness that we put on to have even higher of an opinion of ourselves – I mean real, radical, not rewarding levels of humbleness.

Holy moly! You know, your post, I think, is really a signal. And it's a signal that it's about time that I'll draw an end to my time as a member of this community. I mean when you compare my first posts on here with what I wrote the last few days, you can clearly see a decline in patience. Now, that's healthy to a substantial degree because I'm not as tolerant towards taking shit from others as I used to, but it's also a part of me resisting what this forum is. Calling me stage orange is kind of a weird thing to say. And it's said by someone who has no idea about the amount and type of personal development work I've done the last few years. I mean I would actually go so far as to say that orange is probably the tier 1 stage that I have integrated the least. My deficits in personal development lie in me not focusing enough on orange values, but over focusing on typically green and yellow ways to self-actualize. To quote Tyrion Lannister: "I wish I was the monster you think I am". Especially attributing philosophical thinking as stage orange is kind of weird. Have you ever been to a philosophy course on college level? These are the least orange people you'll ever meet . What came clear to me on my time on this forum is that SD is this thing where everyone thinks they are an expert on, but we cannot agree on anything. You can literally go through the stage yellow examples thread and see a bunch of examples that are really kind of anything - but definitely not yellow. The funniest thing was when I read the claim that Ken Wilber was partly still stuck in orange. I mean...sure, Ken Wilber, the guy who's probably the biggest expert on this topic - ever -, is stuck partly in stage orange. Generally we all seem to be too confident in our assessments of spiral stages and way too narrow-minded in our judgements. Listening to a guy talk for 15' is simply not enough to assess their stage on SD. Too often are people just looking at superficial stuff like fashion, diet, party affiliation, or whether they are using words like "oneness, system, logic, equality" thinking this is a determinant criteria for where someone is. It's like you give people this fun tool and now they want to use it as much as they can. Just to add my two cents; focus on the very basics of this model and really, really try to understand what a stage is and why there isn't just one stage which never changes. And be more conservative in your assessment of people's stage. You do not want to end up in a situation where you have a too specific idea of what a stage is. It's better to have an image that's too broad than an image that's too narrow. But what's really bothering me about your post is the extreme level of disrespect you show towards me. I mean, we all know gossip and people saying negative things about others behind their back which really isn't a classy thing to do. But you know this situation when there's this kid in school that's so unpopular that the popular ones don't even bother going somewhere where he doesn't hear them before talking bad about him? Now, that's some intense level of disrespect! (Someone might jumps in now saying that calling someone stage orange is not saying something negative about them and that I don't understand SD if I think that one stage is better than the other. To which I respond that this total bullshit within the context of this forum. Within this forum SD very well is used as a measurement for how true something is and how good of a person someone is. Ideally we would treat SD assessments as neutral information like telling someone that their eyes are brown. That's not a positive or negative to hear. But if I tell someone that they're turquoise or coral, then that is going to be seen as a compliment and on the flip side; carrying around the label of orange is undoubtedly seen as a negative. Just look at the amount of bashing and ridicule things that are being perceived as orange receive like materialism, libertarianism, pickup, MGTOW etc.. It's kind of this arrogant "the unconscious masses are orange and we, the mystics, are so much better"-mentality, but I'll get to that in a second. On this forum your perceived "level of consciousness" is the currency through which other users determine how valid your perspective is.) Some food for thought: Whatever stage someone's on, there is always a stage that comes after that one (and even if wrong, then nobody has even come close to reaching that final stage). You therefore know that if you regularly move up the spiral, you will change your mind constantly and you will change the lens through which you look at the world constantly. Every stage thinks they have the answers, but also every stage must consider that the stages afterwards might have different answers. But here's the catch: every stage can only speculate what the coming stages would be like, but every stage also wants to believe that they are right. People therefore characterize the stage above them as merely a modified version of their current stage which is beautifully shown in the yellow examples thread. And people characterize the actual stage that's actually above them as being the stage that's below them. With these thoughts in mind, the question arises; how do we ever really know whether something is a stage above or below us? This brings me to the reason I think this forum has served its purpose for me: The atmosphere in here is fucking toxic. This is all relative, of course, but comparing this forum to other virtual personal development groups, you notice that something's off in here. Let me start with what I like about this place: The people take this stuff very serious. Human beings tend to attract others who are like them and likewise what I like about Leo is what I like about his community. Leo's brilliance lies in soaking up a shit ton of knowledge and going way more in depth than most people on very nuanced and complicated topics. The people on here aren't about half assing self-actualization; they read a lot of books, dive fully into the topic and are serious about what they do. Now the negative: The level of social and emotional intelligence of people on this forum is lower than average. That appears to be very obvious to me, but I obliviously haven't done a study on this to prove this claim. But if my memory serves me right, then TJ Reeves used to have a video on YT where he talked about exactly that; the people who come from actualized.org have a massive deficit when it comes to everything related to their emotions. I read too many posts of people saying that they suffer from shit like depression for what this forum pegs itself to be. Tying this back to the post I'm responding to; @Scholar what you did there was a dick move. It was not socially calibrated, it wasn't compassionate, it was nothing of the things I once believed this forum would preach. This place is full of people who constantly talk about society needing more stage green and love, and compassion, and empathy, but then they also rather contemplate about what Love is on a metaphysical level and smoke DMT so they can say that now they have had direct experience of love instead of just just being a more loving being; someone who actively puts in an effort that everyone they interact feels loved after they talked to them. Where is the unconditional Love? I don't see it on this forum. Particularly someone as edgy as me who does disagree with the consensus on more than one topic. All I see is people with a very high opinion of themselves, dwelling in this echo chamber, who advocate that you should ridicule and shame people with different political views. Then they pat each other on the shoulder: "no, you are the conscious one!". This platform is full of shame-energy; if you're not this and if you're a devil and this is ego and you should be this..." Am I the only one who feels this? There is absolutely no "humanness" in the way people interact on here. Like what you did in your post; treating people as case studies. It's a "do your practices!"-mentality "and let's shame the people who aren't as good as us because they waste their lives not self-actualizing". Zero warmth. I mean, pickup gets a lot of criticism on here, but when I have a disagreement with someone from my local inner circle, then there's always this vibe of "despite our differences, we're in this together, brother" to it. It's uplifting, it's refreshing, it's vivid. People don't judge each other there and even normal, boring stage orange or blue people, if you guys were to come down from your ivory tower and actually interact with them, instead of just making a case study thread of example of these people's devilry and closemindedness, are actually loving beings who make way less statements of judgement than the average user on here. I so often feel drained and exhausted when clicking through this forum, and I'm talking just reading threads, not even when I post stuff myself. A self-improvement forum should not have this effect on people; it should be the most uplifting and positive place one can imagine. Oh, and don't even get me started on the concept of "devilry" and the arrogance someone needs to have to use this word unironically. You want to make the world a better place? The solution is not meditation, or getting people to do DMT, or big government or taking away people's freedom of speech. Just go out, talk to people and just share positive emotions. That's all you need to do As final remarks, before I sign off, two things anyone who spends some time on this forum needs to hear more often: sapere aude You don't need to be anything. You'll find all the answers if you listen closely to what your heart is telling you cheers

I don't think you understand what I mean. As said, if you are interested then nominalism is the name of the position to look at and the critique of pure reason by Immanuel Kant. You are not describing utilitarianism in that case. In fact, it's not even consequentialism. You are just saying that more Goodness means more Goodness and less suffering means less Badness. The only interesting claim there is a metaphysical one; you say that there is such thing as Goodness which is an idea I, as stated above, reject. Circular reasoning. But given your rant against philosophy - which, believe it or not, I actually sympathize with some of the points you raised - I assume you don't perceive that as problematic. That is ok, it just gives the person you talk to nothing to work with as it is a fallacy.

Very interesting. What you describe sounds like naturalistic moral realism. I would say that redness does not exist. I would say that there are things that we call "red", but not that there is such thing as "redness", but that redness is merely a construct of our mind. I believe that's where we see things differently; I believe that morality and color are nothing other than stories we invent which are a natural byproduct of our mind trying to make sense of what our senses perceive. I don't know how much knowledge you have on different areas in philosophy, but since you do seem to have quite a lot of knowledge, what I'm trying to describe is nominalism in metaphysics and I especially share some of Kant's views that we structure the world through our perception and one of the things I, unlike Kant, would put into that category is morality. The simplest, and maybe strongest, argument is the good old Ockham's Razor. I believe it's perfectly possible to explain our human experience without having to accept that morality exists - so, I avoid it. And I also don't have to accept the premise that suffering equals Badness for example. Also, to kind of express my dislike with utilitarianism. Even if I were to agree with you that Goodness and Badness are real, then this does not yet explain why I and everyone else are obligated to maximize Goodness. You can call it irrational if I don't, but to why is someone obligated to make the world better?

Fixed it You and I are trying to get different things out of this forum. I see that and I can respect that Well said. I can respect that as well. Nothing to add.

To make my position clear: I am pro free-speech and believe that on the level of lawmaking everyone should be allowed to express their views and to make as many jokes about whatever they want. However, that does not mean that I endorse everything anyone ever said. I don't know how much you read of me in the cultural appropriation thread, but I phrased my position as wanting people to be more empathetic, compassionate and socially intelligent. My problem is merely the push for institutional punishment because you believe that someone said something they should not have said. If your position is that you want people to be more sensitive towards others without asking for a regulation of free speech, then we don't have a disagreement on this issue. I assumed you agree with @electroBeam who does support that the government takes some form of action because of what Piers Morgan said. The way I understand you is that you believe that individuals should behave according to utilitarianism, but don't think the government's role is to enforce everything to be maximized along the lines of utilitarianism. It sounds like you are way closer to my side than @electroBeam 's. If your core point is that people should be more sensitive towards the struggles non-binary individuals go through and think twice about how their utterances affect people with different experiences than them, then we are fully on the same page here. If that is your position, then I don't think there's a need to go into the more specifics of our banter on what is ok to say and what isn't because it sounds like we both agree that what behavior is asked for in a certain situation depends a lot on context and the social dynamic and that because of that every attempt for rigid rules to base our behavior on is simply blind towards the nuances of human interactions. I am a moral antirealist; I believe that morality does not exist and therefore no normative claim can be true. When I said stage orange I didn't mean historically. I meant that according to Kohlberg's theory of moral development which Ken Wilber integrated in his work, consequentialism is on the fifth stage of his theory which falls into the realm of orange in Wilber's model.

Yes, you did use ad hominem arguments and you ironically used more than one of these in this very post of yours. But I'm open to hearing why you believe what you doesn't fall into that category. Yes, you do care about philosophical consistency. You are not aware of the ramifications of accepting philosophical inconsistency; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion If you truly don't care about being philosophically inconsistent, then there's no point arguing with you. In fact, I don't know what you're doing on an Internet forum where people exchange different viewpoints if you reject the very principles of logic and philosophy. Accepting inconsistency basically means rejecting the idea that the truth of one claim can depend on the truth of another; every claim should therefore be treated independently from every other. That is absurd. There needs to be a common ground for a conversation to be possible which in that case simply isn't there between us.

I had my hopes high because it started well. But at the very end of your post you simply had to fall back into bad habits and attack me personally. There is no point in talking to someone like you. Your behavior is very disrespectful, cheap and contributing to an even more toxic atmosphere on this forum than there already is. So, despite feelings of pessimism towards how you'll respond to this, I'll try to address your points. In case you do choose to continue to spew your theories about who I am then I wont respond to your posts and would ask you to not respond to mine from now on. This simply isn't worth my time. Let's add nuance, but let's also stay precise. You changed the premises to "marginalized and non-political groups". What about non-marginalized groups and what about political groups? Are the premises still true if we remove either or both of these attributes? What does it mean for a group to be marginalized? How do we measure that? The idea that gender isn't binary is an idea that was put forward by a political ideology - feminism. The whole concept of "being non-binary" is not scientific, but philosophical. Believing that there are more options than being male or female is merely political ideology. Is it incorrect to call people who identify as "non-binary" a political group since they all share the same political ideology? What about non-binary people who are political activists? Are we allowed to make fun of politically active non-binary individuals? You propose that we find a good balance, sensitive to the particular context, between a right to speech and regulation. Where is that balance? How do I know in a particular case whether the speech I'm about to utter is permitted or not? This needs to be clear beforehand; people need to know what they can say and what they can't say. Who gets to decide what the right answer to these questions is? I am not a utilitarian. I reject this moral theory. You cannot simply expect that everyone shares the same moral values as you. Also, since you are one of these people who loves to use SD to argue your point; you are aware that utilitarianism is stage orange? Quiet ironic We might not gain social benefit from the phenomenon of stigmatization, but we do get social benefits from the speech and jokes that you believe would lead to this stigmatization. If someone believes they have a right not to be offended and ask for government intervention for speech they don't like, then these people are not part of the group of people "just minding their own business", but the prior one you described

Again: How about you phrase your arguments more precisely then? If you are unable to characterize your position in a convincing fashion, then it's very arrogant of you to say that this is my fault Do you notice how utterly arrogant and egotistical the things you utter are? Imagine thinking that my inability to convince someone has nothing to don with how convincing my arguments are, but it's just that the people who disagree with me are ideological. Everything you say boils down to "I am conscious and right and therefore every disagreeing viewpoint must be wrong and fueled by ego." Now, tell me how I'm wrong about this assessment. Alright, then showcase this! Don't hide in some meta-perspective. Show me specifically how the way I argue conveys who I am. Show that what you're saying here is true and not just another ad hominem argument which you deducted out of thin air. The level of ego, man ^^ "If you had an open mind, you would see that I am right" I hate to use that word, as it's used inflationary, but "projection" I would tell them that this is circular reasoning. The exact logical fallacy you are guilty of; presupposing the conclusion as a premise. In this case; presupposing that you're side is right and I'm ideological. If you accept this premise - which your side does - then any conclusion other than you being right isn't valid. Careful not to regress back to stage blue. Green people are perfectly capable of changing their minds, arguing and - most importantly - disagreeing with one another. Absolutism is a blue characteristic. Never make the mistake of being too sure. Once again not arguing the point, but making assumptions about me. gj I mean, why would you argue the point when you can just discredit him beforehand? Way simpler and way more effective you mean you've been in the box you try to fit me in? Obviously, because you cannot even consider the possibility that I see something you have a blindspot to as, in that case, your entire argument would collapse as all you write is built around that premise. You don't know anything about me; cut that shit. You are being in fantasy land where you can stack the deck the way you'd like it to be Also funny is that pseudo compassionate "we've been at that place ourselves". I legit lol'd when I read it. Like; is there anything more condescending than what you wrote there. "You know, I understand you. I know what it's like to be as undeveloped as you" Bro, you're just some guy on an Internet forum I don't know whether it's surprising or unsurprising that the people who work the hardest to be less egoic tend to be the ones with the most massive of egos.

Ad hominem Ad hominem - again If you stand by your premise that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group, then only three options remain if you care about philosophical consistency: Violence towards Trump supporters as a result of ridicule must be accepted We shouldn't make fun of any group as it leads to violence towards them The premise is untrue As I wrote in a previous post to a different user: You argue for the right to be a dick towards others while being appalled when the rock gets thrown back at you.

@Serotoninluv I wont respond to your two posts. The reason is that I don't believe that you are interested i hearing what I have to say. In the several arguments that you and I have had on this forum, you have repeatedly: Made assumptions about me which presented me in a bad light - ad hominem Attributed me with bad motives - ad hominem as well Ignored questions I asked Falsely characterized my position - Strawman A thread in which you did all three - in case you want to check whether I'm saying the truth - is the Greta Thunberg thread All you really do everytime you quote on of my posts is to ignore the arguments I made and put the label "stage orange" onto me which conveniently reliefs you from the duty to engage with what I say to prove how the claims you disagree with are wrong. So, instead of arguing the point, you put me into a spot where I have to argue why I'm not stage orange (btw a claim you have no basis to make since - and that I told you several times as well - you don't know anything about me) because once you carry the label "orange" on here, you are not taken seriously. This is especially damaging since many people value what you write as plenty of people will therefore believe your word over mine and take my "unconsciousness" as a fact. Just through this name-calling have you put my entire point in an offside position where I now fight an uphill battle. Every strong argument I make loses it's worth as "arguments are stage orange". And if I attempt to roll the ball back to you, then you always justify your inability to phrase a coherent argument by saying that you cannot convey your superior perspective to me because of how stuck I am within my own paradigm. Basically, every argument I make from that point on further proves your point and your inability to show that I'm wrong and you're right just needs to be accepted. I mean this very thread is an example of that. You now threw the label "orange" onto me and whether the things I say are true or not doesn't matter because my reputation is now the one of the orange guy who clings to his ideology. And of course, you are just offering a new perspective and of course I am just clinging to my own perspective...sure I know you like to see yourself as a teacher. But I don't see you that way. I don't see you as an expert on spiral dynamics either. I'm not looking up to you. I actually perceive you as someone wo has too high of an opinion of and overestimates himself (seen by your ridiculous claims of being yellow or turquoise). I believe that I have repeatedly shown a willingness towards you to engage with you on an equal level; two open minds exchanging ideas. But instead you always avoid this dynamic by implying that my perspective is inferior instead of actually engaging with the arguments I make. The most disrespectful example was probably in the Greta-thread where you once again responded to my first post and literally said nothing other than "your perspective is orange", and instead of at least partly engaging with any claim I made, you used me as some sort of case study of what orange looks like. You once made the comparison that my posts are like someone setting off firecrackers during a piano lesson. I believe you have a too preconceived notion of me to treat me fairly and to treat my views with the intellectual open-mindedness that I expect on an Internet forum. Basically, I'd ask you to not respond to my posts on this forum from now on. History has shown that nothing of value comes from it.

@Scholar Well how about you phrase your position more precisely then? Instead of insulting me

LGBTQ+ people are not oppressed either; we're talking UK, not Saudi Arabia. And no, you cannot choose your political views either. Could you be a Trump supporter? I don't think you can. What you're doing here, I think feminists call it "victim blaming" If you accept the premise "that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group" which I believe you do, then I don't quite know how to follow you here. Either you say that violence against Trump supporters is justified in which case I'd call you a piece of shit and end this conversation here with you because I believe our worldviews are too different in that case to find any common-ground and therefore nothing of substance can result from our banter here. If you say that violence against Trump supporters is not justified, then every stance other than "we also shouldn't make fun of Trump supporters as it can lead to violence towards them." is a contradiction from your part. Exactly. You can dislike and disagree with other's speech as much as you want. If you think that Piers Morgan should suffer consequences for his speech, then use your power as free citizen in a free country with a (more or less) free market to punish him for his actions. That's exactly what I'm advocating for!

Obviously. I'm not advocating for bullying. That would be like advocating for murder or poverty; who does that? This appears to me like a question where we have to be careful not to be sucked into fantasy land where everyone is kind to everyone. You, like me, like every other human being ever will be confronted with people who don't like us, with mockery, insults, bullying etc. Everyone experiences that to a certain degree. What is being debated in this thread is this: I believe that being a victim of bad treatment does not entitle you to limit someone else's freedom. I strongly oppose the axiom that's currently being held by a large percentage of society and advocated by the political left that victimhood is a virtue that should be rewarded with power. I believe that under all circumstances freedom of speech must be chosen over the right not be offended and we're not helping people when we create incentives for them to feel like victims. You're coming from a compassionate place. But I don't think we're helping victims of bullying by pretending that perspectives they disagree with don't exist.

If you accept @electroBeam 's premise that normalization of stigmatization leads to violence being committed towards that group, then you'd be against all types of ridicule. And especially when we're talking about Trump; tell me a group where making fun of them is more socially accepted than him and his supporters. Making fun of LGBTQ+ people is considered highly politically incorrect, viciously insulting Trump and his supporters is socially accepted (at least in the public conversation and where I live). And in fact, Trump supporters get attacked regularly on the streets of the US by far-left activists like Antifa. I perceive violence against Trump supporters as being more socially accepted than violence against LGBTQ+ folks. “To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire And if your point was merely that it's ok to make fun of those in power then how about we pick a different example that I named; is it ok for people on this forum to mock libertarians? They are not in power. actualized.org should be censored! One cannot argue for the right to be a dick towards others while being appalled when the rock gets thrown back at him. If you believe that you have the right to make fun of others, then stop playing the victim is what I'd suggest. I am pro free speech. And I'm not entitled to decide whom other people hire. As I wrote i a previous post; Piers is not responsible for other people's actions. I don't like Piers Morgan, so I don't watch his show. It's that simple.

@electroBeam I've seen people making jokes on this forum about Trump, Trump supporters, libertarians, materialists, atheists and stage orange people. If I go and beat up the next person I see with a MAGA-hat, would you support the ban of actualized.org? I mean there is a stigma on Trump supporters. Indirectly, Leo is fuelling unacceptable and damaging behavior to some groups in the world. That is so irresponsible from him. Also, should Nicki Minaj be banned from the radio because her fans cyber bully Cardi B? See how ridiculous that is? Piers is not responsible for the actions of others and should not be held accountable for them. Especially not for jokes. Also, I'd really love to see how you would explain how hearing a joke by Piers Morgan leads to an individual making the decision to beat up non binary people. Is there like a threshold that when you heard 174 jokes you draw the logical conclusion that violence is necessary? There is a point in time when everyone - even a non-binary person - needs to realize that they're not the center of the universe and aren't entitled to only hear points of view that they agree with.