Parththakkar12

Here in India, there is a caste system. It used to be a really rigid fixed social structure. If your dad was a farmer, you'd be a farmer. If your dad was a jeweller, you'd be a jeweller. So the lower castes have historically faced discrimination and oppression. Over the years, under British rule, this started to change. It had to, because of pressure from the Brits. When India became independent of British rule, the person who wrote the Indian Constitution was Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, someone from one of the lowest castes. He wrote it to really give additional opportunities to lower-caste people. (You may think that was a Green SJW move. I think it was a Blue move, cuz it was 'for my caste') Now, 60-70 years later, everyone wants to get a lower-caste certificate! Everyone wants to be classified that way because of the benefits it gives. You can consider it a move towards communism.

I understand your desire to point at them and say 'That's a deluded person!' I'm not calling you partisan - you probably are right from a systemic perspective. I also understand your desire to beat Trump. What I'm trying to call out is our way of dealing with right-wingers. What I'm suggesting is that we be more kind to them, given their current situations. Cancel culture is a whole situation right now. If you have a family you're providing for with your well-paying job and you post just a little tweet that doesn't align with the Left, you could get cancelled! That's the sustenance of your whole family at risk.

I completely understand what you're saying. You and I can sit all day and discuss the nuances of the situation. My point is that when you dismissed this situation as 'no big deal, over-exaggerated by right-wingers', you lost the vote of a centrist-type, someone who isn't fully sure of which way they lean. It's important that we collectively take responsibility for the fact that Trump is in office and we pay attention to why it's happened.

People's livelihoods are on the line.

From a right-winger's perspective, when a university pulls an 'SJW-move' like that, it comes across as a threat to collective safety. It comes across as 'Now I'm gonna lose my job cuz I said a word? No, I'm gonna lose my job cuz you mis-heard a word from me? You can make anything up to take me out in that case!' When collective safety is threatened, people lean more to the right. Their inner Stage Blue gets activated and they start taking more responsibility for collective safety.

You say this to a right-winger, they're gonna be like 'Alright. You want to play dirty? Fine. I'm gonna vote for Trump.'

Politicians don't have good memories.

Of course! God forbid if he comes to this forum and sees all of us crap all over him, he'll say 'I'm the fuckin President. How many of you have been President of any country? Take that suckahs!!'

Absolutely!!!!! THE DONALD NEVER LOSES!!!!! All he does is win win win win win!!! On a serious note, in his childhood, being a loser was seen as bad. His dad placed a very high emphasis on achievement and he has been trying to get his dad's approval ever since.

Is this just a product of the current times? Or has the right always been conservative vs left always being liberal? What does left and right mean?

Yeah lol he was like 'Oh shit. I won. Now what?'

He's even littler. He's a 2yo who cries mommy whenever the media talks against him.

There is only one way we really see the damage of zero-sum games to humanity as a whole. We have a third world war. We will have to see massive bloodshed as a consequence of zero-sum game style survival. We will have to physically see this survival strategy backfire. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way. I wish I could say I see a peaceful way of getting there. Human beings don't want to lose each other. No matter how bad a relationship, losing it doesn't feel good. Human beings have evolved to want to be together under all conditions. If we have a third world war, this will cause humanity enough pain and suffering to admit to each other - 'I don't care how many problems we have, I don't want to lose you.' If you wanted realism, this is what I realistically feel will happen. It sounds very New-Agey and idealistic on paper, but the process to get there looks very dark and scary, and maybe even not worth it.

Except that true anarchism isn't forced or 'brought about'. It is naturally evolved into. It is realistic from the perspective of nature, or God, or the creator of humans. Nature can make it such that zero-sum games just stop working as a survival strategy. All the conflicts that were suppressed and hidden can come into plain-view. People, who have no idea how to resolve these conflicts, will inevitably pick sides and go to battle. Life with zero-sum games must get difficult enough for people to want a better way out. It is possible for the greater universe to make human life incredibly difficult in response to zero-sum games. It would in fact be in alignment with the Absolute Truth of Oneness. It can be made such that unconsciousness has greater and greater consequences. Now of course you can't take away someone's free will cuz they are God too. But you can make the consequences worse and worse.

Everyone. If one person wants them, we'll have them! For this, conflicts need to be resolved first. That's when there will be the possibility that people will actually trust each other enough to lay down their weapons. This is the easy way to denuclearization. The hard way (which is more likely) is people keep playing zero-sum games and they escalate into WW3, where nukes will be used. Then, people learn from history that 'Maybe we should care about each other if we want to live peacefully.'

Well, I have to make this assumption to make a case against democracy! This is the only possibility I see where democracy could fail. And if people do evolve into well-behaved angels, my point is democracy will fail.

My bad. I missed the specifics. My point is we'll voluntarily get rid of the bombs, cuz we'll see that we don't need them to live peacefully.

Except for one possibility - if humans have evolved past zero-sum games! In that potential situation, we will voluntarily de-nuclearize.

My bad. I probably used the wrong word then. I meant anarchists, people who don't believe in enforced government, people who believe in no enforced government. They can have collective responsibility. They believe in privatizing all services, in people voluntarily coming together and creating the kind of society they want. My point is that this can work in a world where zero-sum games don't work as a survival strategy within human society, aka individual humans see that 'It's bad for me to play zero-sum games with another human.' You're saying it can't work in a world where zero-sum games do work as a survival strategy. I agree with you on this.

Humans are capable of better. When I say 'zero-sum games', I mean the ones humans play with each other and maybe the ones humans play with animals. Of course, a lion must play zero-sum games to survive. You can say this is a very self-serving potential consideration, that nature won't do this for you. Well, we're still talking in the realm of theory here! Humans have been wanting a peaceful and loving society. This isn't technically the case for animals. So humans could potentially be motivated to create it!

The whole point of real libertarianism is it can't be enforced. If our systems fail, we will naturally evolve into libertarianism. The question was 'Can we do better than democracy?'. This question is relevant if democracy inherently starts to fail because of the 'majority wins' zero-sum game. The whole idea is if a zero-sum game style of living becomes naturally untenable, aka evolution starts to weed out those humans who rely on zero-sum games for survival, then democracy collapses and we naturally evolve into a peaceful, loving libertarian society. If zero-sum games work, then yeah, democracy is the most efficient we've got. Then I agree with everything you've said in your video on libertarianism.

My only argument against democracy is that it is fundamentally based on a zero-sum game, which is the 'majority wins' system. It is a peaceful way of the majority dominating the minority. It is a pragmatic adaptation to the issue of genocide and war over what different groups want. But it still doesn't resolve the conflicts between the groups. How do we solve this? We go through a peaceful libertarian phase where everyone is so evolved that we've woken up to the reality that we are all one, so we realize that it isn't in our natural best interests to hurt each other. Then, we come together and consciously create our society. Our current society has not been consciously created, it has unconsciously evolved. We've never consciously created our society in history. That has yet to happen.

@creator20 These are good questions. You are on the right track. We talk a lot about what's 'good' vs 'bad' in politics. However, from our understanding of non-duality, we see that there is no absolute 'good' vs 'bad', it's all relative. So what is 'good' vs 'bad' relative to in politics? It's what's 'good' vs 'bad' for the country/community. A community will make rules according to what's good/bad for itself. This is true of religions, countries, civilizations, etc. These rules will serve as the 'boundaries' of the collective, aka a collective ego. The morality will be a part of the collective ego. This morality will then be enforced by a government, police system and a court system. The definition of a particular rule will include enforcement protocols and punishments given out for breaking the rule. Now why punish the breaking of the rules? Because the rules weren't naturally there, they were artificially constructed. So, they must be artificially enforced. The whole point of 'justice' is to maintain the integrity of the rules created by the community. There are new arguments against the whole notion of justice, that it stems from a revenge mindset, that the collective wants to take revenge from a bad actor by 'punishing' them. This is an interesting consideration.

Healthy blue would be about teaching morals, ethics and values. You can be taught how to be a 'good person'. A Stage Red person who is tired of fighting for their safety will really lap it up and embrace a peaceful, stable, safe and secure Stage Blue life if there is someone to teach them.

Neo-conservatism is more about lamenting the loss of the 'good old past'. I've legit heard conservatives say this - 'It's very hard to compete with the Left cuz they bring up and campaign for all these crazy changes. They can garner attention very easily cuz of this. The Right is having a difficult time attracting attention. When you say 'Change Nothing!!', that doesn't really polarize and radicalize people so it doesn't work to attract attention.' I must give credit to the guy saying this for at least being conscious of the fact that conservatism is all about resisting change!