DocWatts

Bill Watterson (creator of the Calvin and Hobbes) sums up a Green ethos quite beautifully. Full comic here: https://www.mommysbusy.com/calvin-hobbes-daddy-bill-watterson-proves-why-stay-at-home-moms-and-dads-rule/

@amorri1010 Of course what you say is true, and just to lay my biases on the table, when I refer to contemporary Socialism, I'm implicitly referencing to what I'll broadly refer to as Libertarian-Socialism. While that's far from the only ideological block under the 'Socialist' umbrella, but I do see it as the most relevant to contemporary conditions in the United States and Europe. That's not to deny the Historical and Sociological significance of other types of Socialism, but as a contemporary political force in the West, I would argue that they are negligible. Regardless of whether thier arguments have Merit, something like Anarcho-Syndicalism or Leninism are anachronistic by this point.

I would posit that wanting to separate Essentials (health care, education, utilities, housing, etc) from Markets is a far cry from positing public ownership of the entire economy... It's my understanding that most contemporary Socialists want to retain Markets, but believe that they should be subordinate to what's necessary for the Public Good (rather than the exact opposite being true).

@amorri1010 Great and thoughtful post, and welcome to the Forum. From my own vantage point, the most common mistake I see about Socialism (disregarding its demonization from intellectually dishonest actors) is to be Reductionist about it, and treat Socialism an All or Nothing affair. Either workers in a Society own the means of production, or they're being exploited. When from my point of view, thinking of Socialism as a gradation or a matter of degree makes much more sense. Powerful Unions which give workers a voice as to how their workplace is run is one point on that spectrum, with worker owned businesses being further along on that spectrum. While %100 socialist country is unrealistic, I see no reason in principle why various degrees and gradations of Socialism can't co-exist within a system driven by Market forces (at least within the more Democratic countries of the world, this system obviously wouldn't work where Democratic Institutions are weak). If one looks at the moral imperatives behind Socialism, namely that workers: (1) deserve the full value of thier labor (2) should have control over thier work environment (3) should be able contribute in a meaningful way to the products of thier labor. The mistake I see is that people become ideologically fixated on their chosen method for achieving these Principles, rather than on the Principles themselves; missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. I would argue that thinking that there's only one way to achieve these overall goals is Limiting, and there's a Spectrum for how fully these Principles are realized.

The illusion of separation between humans and the natural world is a systemic problem, one of whose root causes stems from the worldwide economic system not factoring ecological costs in to the costs of Production. Instead matters that are of existential importance to mankind as a living organism on this planet (Climate Change, the acidification of the Oceans, etc) are treated as 'externalities', and a perverse incentive arises for individuals and groups to gain short term profits at the expense of long term human survival. Obviously this sort of system can't last forever, the question is will humans make changes to this system on our terms, or will changes be forced upon us by an ecological crash that threatens human existence. Let's hope and work for the former, as the latter entails widespread suffering. Whatever economic system ends up eclipsing Capitalism will as a matter of necessity need to have Ecological as a central pillar, in order to have any sort of longevity.

While I don't disagree with this overall assessment, that doesn't change the fact that the impetus is on Israel - the more powerful actor - to renounce its Manifest Destiny ambitions, and commit to working towards a two state solution. The impetus can not be placed on the people who have been put in an impossible situation, either resist and suffer massive and disproportionate retaliation, or submit and resign themselves to slowly having what's left of thier home taken from then.

Even calling this a Conflict seems somewhat misleading, when you considering the Power Imbalance between the two sides. As if there's any ambiguity over what the outcome will be when a stateless people happens to be in the way of an Imperialist State. If International Pressure was justified in pressuring South Africa to end Apartheid, it's equally justified in pushing back against the Apartheid that's the Israeli State is enabling.

Here's a few recommendations: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History: If you're not already familiar, he takes the approach of a master storyteller, and covers a number of topics from both the 20th Century and the Ancient world. Often covers well trod subject matter from a unique angle (Why isn't Alexander the Great legacy treated with the same disdain as Hitler? Or World War 2, but from a Japanese point of view). https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ The Martyrmade Podcast: http://www.martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem/ Best podcast you'll find about the origins of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also has another excellent series on cult leader Jim Jones, which goes in to a ton of depth about the fragmentation of the US Civil Rights movement after MLK's assassination. The Dollop: This one's a comedy podcast, but also quite informative as it covers a wide range of bizarre and interesting topics from US History. Did you know that Andrew Jackson was sent a 1000 lb wheel of cheese which began going moldy and stunk up the White House ? Or that the City of Chicago created an ecological disaster when it released tens of thousands of balloons during a parade? https://www.dolloppodcast.com/podcast

Could you perhaps be referring to Meditations by Marcus Aurelius?

Because our Education System was created to serve the needs of the economy, rather than to help people develop self actualization skills.

Not sure if Vaush has been mentioned yet, but I could see that discussion being potentially very productive and interesting...

You'll be much better off if you think of him as just a guy whose job it is to contemplate philosophical ideas, and then to communicate those ideas via his online platform (and happens to be pretty good at it). If you find yourself putting him on a pedestal, put in some work to find the faults in the ideas and concepts that he puts forth. I've often been better served by seeking out outside sources for many of the topics that Leo discusses, and contrasting how the book I'm reading frames a topic vs Leo's take. For instance I've found the philosopher Thomas Nagel's arguments against materialist reductionism more convincing than Leo's 'Deconstructing the Myth of Science' series, but still found it useful for how someone with a Perspective would make said argument.

The more I learn about Don Beck, the less positively inclined I am towards him. Guess there's no requirement that important innovations or discoveries have to originate from people with a high degree of virtue or integrity (insert pithy anecdote about Thomas Edison here).

The point of my previous post wasn't to necessarily to justify everything that the neighboring Arab countries did in response to Israel's actions, but rather to demonstrate that the military invasions didn't come out of nowhere. I would further argue that many (perhaps even most) other nations would have responded in a similar way in that scenario.

@Raptorsin7 Some additional context may be helpful as to why the Arab nations tried to wipe Israel of the map, as you put it. When Israel was established, it created large numbers of displaced refugees who were pushed out of where they had been living, causing instability as they began streaming into neighboring countries, who either didn't want them or didn't have a place for them. To illustrate the difficulties this caused, imagine that a foreign power began colonizing the closest neighboring country to where you live and started pushing out the people who were already living there, causing tens of thousands of displaced people to begin streaming into the country you reside, with all of the instability which that entails. Even if you don't agree with the decisions they made in response to this, the surrounding Arab countries reacted in the way that they did for understandable reasons; not because of imagined unresolvable religious tensions, or because of an inability for Jews and Arabs to coexist.

I would be interested in hearing this as well.

Feel like I'm beginning to sound like a broken record when I lead off with : another excellent discussion from Vaush, but alas... Wasn't familiar with Epoch Philosophy before seeing this, but it was interesting hearing Vaush's reactions to someone critiquing the Structure (rather than the Content) of his work. I've never thought that Debates were a very productive means of Political Discourse, and that Vaush's Debate Lord videos have been by far the least engaging content on his Channel. As a side note, I'm tempted to start co-opting the term 'non ideological Left' as not a terrible way to surmise my worldview in a few words...

If you want to see the emergence of a Yellow aesthetic in fiction, I would specifically recommend that you research Metamodernism (the newly emerging Paradigm that was developed to transcend the limitations of Postmodernism), along with its fictional counterpart, which is variously referred to as The New Sincerity or Sincere Irony. David Foster Wallace is often seen as an early example of a Metamodern author, as a lot of his essays deal quite directly with the subject. His essay E Unibus Pluram outlines many of the limitations of postmodernism in fiction, and makes the case for a new Sincerity and Authenticity in the narrative arts.

I get that it may be at least some exposure to outside views for people sealed tight into an echo chamber, but it seems pretty sub-optimal for delving in to the thought process of other worldviews, does it not? Because the structure of a debate is more akin to something like a Game, people are naturally going to be more defensive and guarded in that situation. Though learning what sorts of Rhetorical tricks different ideologies tend to employ can be useful, I'll grant you. I'd argue something like Borat is far more illuminating than listening to two talking heads in a debate style format, since in the former the persons being spoken to don't have thier defense mechanisms in overdrive, and are more willing to be honest about thier motivations and feelings as a result.

@Dryas While I don't see debates as very productive, I would argue that there's value in, well let's just call it Dialogue for lack of a better term, where the goal is less about confrontation and more exploring an idea with someone with the aim of mutual understanding of perspectives. I can't speak to the rest of the world, but I've seen this used far more successfully in getting someone to consider and take seriously other perspectives than a debate ever could.

From what you know of J.P., is it your sense that this due to him operating in Bad Faith and not actually giving a damn about fixing Predatory Capitalism and addressing Climate Change? Or do you think it's more a case that he isn't developed enough to recognize how his own biases are preventing him from thinking systematically about Societal Issues? Sometimes it can be hard to tell whether an otherwise Intelligent person at the lower Value Memes truly doesn't recognize that something is a problem, or whether they do recognize but don't actually care enough to try and fix it. I kind of get the sense that he has extreme tunnel vision for monomyths as a normative force for fixing the perceived deficiencies of modern society, but I'd be interested to hear whether or not you agree.

@Leo Gura You've been mentioning recently how you've been wanting to make your work more accessible, I think the J.P. Video is a great step in that direction. As far as ideas for more short form content, have you considered making a short 10 - 20 minute Primer or Introductory video for Spiral Dynamics? Could potentially be very useful for newcomers who might not have the time or patience to make it through a multi hour series on the topic.

In my mind I separate Conservatism from the modern Republican Party, whose operating philosophy seems to be : "How do we make life more difficult for as many people as possible?" Granted this probably isn't intentional, so much as an unconscious byproduct of an extremely selfish and unreflective worldview.

Beat me to it So are reality TV Stars running for political Office just going to be a thing now that we're resigned to?

Interesting how he just assumes that the lowering of Living Standards in Western Democracies will lead to working class solidarity and a rejection of exploitative Capitalism, rather than to Right Wing authoritarian populism (ie a resurgence in Fascism), which is pretty much exactly what we've been seeing over the past decade or so. I have to wonder whether those who are waiting for The Revolution to come along and fix the world's problems are engaging in Magical Thinking akin to Christians waiting for the Rapture, or whether they're just being willfully obtuse to unintended consequences of Revolution as a means to enact social change. While I'm glad the issue of International exploitation is being discussed and taken seriously, it really is incredible how naive some on the Left are to the unintended consequences of the course of events they opine for... There's just not going to be a 'quick fix' to the issue of exploitation; a developmental approach is the only realistic avenue I've seen articulated that would address this issue.