zazen

A big issue in conflicts is when both groups judge their own side by their best, while being ignorant of their worst. It’s one thing to ignore the worst parts of your society, it’s another to acknowledge them. But it’s a whole other to actually justify, defend and protest the most depraved aspects of your society - even if those who do so are few in number. The fact that they feel emboldened enough to be able to do so indicates the Overton shift towards radicalism. The table of world opinion has turned so swiftly that we have influencers heads in America (Israel’s greatest ally) discussing their support for Israel and the history of their relationship. Who would’ve thought:

Alice Weidel has called for Ukraine to compensate Germany for the damage caused to its economy as a result of the attack: “The economic damage to our country caused by the demolition of Nord Stream presumably ordered by Zelensky - and not Putin as we were led to believe - should be "billed" to Ukraine.”

A similar phenomena is happening on youtube where every next podcast title is filled with 'doomsday, civil war, collapse' rhetoric and a shocked face as a thumbnail - nauseatingly cheesy. Perverse incentives. You see the same podcasts and guests being recycled between each others shows discussing the same plight of the West and the world. Not that what they are saying isn't valid, or partially so - just that the circle jerking over it to profit of off clicks and ads is so boring and played out. It's like, why not have a convention where all these guys come together to discuss and brain storm solutions. But obviously that wouldn't result in the numerous videos, clicks and pay outs each youtuber would receive.

The same reaction from women to men happens when they see the discourse among red pill Youtubers and respond with 'not all women' to add nuance to the discussion. Saying not all women or not all men is simply a plea for individuality - that neither side should be judged as a collective but more as individuals. Both sides will see this as deflection, rather than a correction. Both sides will go about legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Both sides will universalise their experience of the bad apples amongst the other gender. The accusation that this phrase (or not all women) derails, is itself a derailment. It suggests that any defense or clarification is an attack on the conversation's integrity. I think it can become a derailment when the grievances aren't being listened to, and anything that hurts the ego of the opposite gender gets responded to with such a phrase. It's like, Okay, we know not all men or women, but we're discussing the men and women who do act out badly. The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations.

@BlueOak Good summary. Their size is definitely their achilles heel, its one thing to have a large land mass with a large population to defend it - its another to have a large land mass and extensive border with a small and dwindling population that will struggle to defend it. Definitely a embarrassment for Putin and Russia, something Western media are revelling in though the glory may only be lived in the short term. The economic incentives are heavily in favour of US industry. It seems they want to throw Zelensky under the bus now that they see no real way out of this mess. They want it to come to a end whilst saving face, hence Germany cutting aid in half just last month. US has its own domestic issues to deal with and wants to re-orient to China as the next boogeyman.

Might be a move out of desperation. What makes Ukraine think they can successfully take the fight to Russia by invading Russia itself with the same lack of military personnel, resources and hardware / munitions that have failed them in their own country where they have the home advantage. Might also be a distraction from the recent news of Ukraine being behind the Nord stream sabotage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report Not going to poke the holes in the story, but if Ukraine have acted independently of Western/US approval - it only makes it all the more embarrassing that so much money is getting funnelled from the West to Ukraine, only to have them commit a act of economic terrorism affecting their very own donors and supporters and escalate tensions with Russia. Same goes for this Kursk incursion which many are saying has only been able to occur thanks to advanced NATO equipment / Western intelligence. Kursk of all places, where one of the most pivotal battles of World War 2 took place. A quote from Heinz Guderian who was a prominent German general - ''It's impossible to move forward, and when we move backward, the road is filled with the corpses of our comrades. When you start an offensive, you don't just stop because it's getting difficult, but once you've gone in, you never get out again.''

Just because something is a construct, doesn't mean its useless. The concept of the noble lie was that some things may not be objectively true, but are created to exist in order to serve a utilitarian purpose or smooth running of society. If we de-construct all constructs, we'll end up eroding many psychological pillars that hold our world together, including our selves. Money itself is a construct, a shared myth to facilitate our global economy. Organised religion is a noble lie to foster cohesion and ''positive'' behaviour - heaven is the carrot, hell is the stick. Subjective beliefs have objective consequences. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters, because it can matter-ialise in reality. What purpose does seeing everything as a construct serve? Beside feeling special for a moment as if we've stumbled upon a secret exposing the matrix - to loosen our grip on labels, concepts and identity and allow for more plurality?

Yeah, I think extremism is something any human is capable of tapping into but that the majority don't. Religion and certain beliefs can definitely nurture extremism as can extreme situations. Extremism can also be non religious and motivated by ideology, politics or nationalism - but those are treated religiously. Communist extremists come to mind, or Kamikaze fighters in Japan who would commit strategic suicide based on the cultural code of Bushido which emphasised honour, sacrifice and loyalty to the Emperor. With Islam in particular, the idea of martyrdom is predisposed to extremism as it can be too easily distorted away from a defensive interpretation to a offensive interpretation. The situation doesn't help that the world recognises Palestinians to be occupied as this gives the extreme factions among them justification, they can simply say - ''Look, we aren't going to them (proactively, offensively), they have already come to us and we are occupied, so any action we take is defence (reactive) thus justified.'' This is where even if all our beliefs are constructs and subjective, subjectivity still has objective real world affects. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters because it can matter-ialise in reality. Racism is biological extremism, fanaticism is psychological extremism, totalitarianism is political extremism, fundamentalism is religious extremism.

Definitely negative incentive structure in place to continue the blood shed. On the macro, the occupation and periodic operations provide further incentive for bloodshed, as does this 10 month campaign of unleashed hell. Emotional fatigue has set in over Gaza despite atrocities occurring weekly but just this week two stories sparked outrage again. Four day old twins killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza while their father went to register their birth - on returning he found his twins, wife, and their grandmother dead. Another was a school bombing killing circa 100, whilst they were doing their morning prayers. The UK felt the need to comment: When atrocities or the defense of them occur (ie protests shown above) we are told these are just the bad apples of Israeli society. When atrocities are committed by Palestinians we are told this is inherent in Arab society - the extremism and 'low development.' Westerners exceptionalize their crimes (its a minority who commit them and not their society that gave birth to them), but generalize others crimes (its something inherent to 'their' culture.)

Building settlements on what could be their state literally erodes the trust and peace - that is the low bar set for Israel, to simply stop taking more land. But from the world of realpolitik, I see where your coming from - which is why I've sadly concluded before that there doesn't seem to be a solution, except one that is imposed from outside, which there is very little will to do (US just approved 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to Israel). Israel will only act out of pragmatism, not principle - and only when there is enough pressure politically, economically, and physically (survival) might they concede to some sort of settlement mediated by outside forces, not directly with Hamas of course. Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice. Because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal world order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice for peace, but often we default to the natural order of power where peace before justice prevails. That peace is usually attained through the existence of or imposition of power - even if it delays justice and prolongs current injustice. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If You Want Peace, Prepare For War. The existence of power acts as a deterrence, which brings about peace so long as that power isn't abused. Justice for peace is how we hope the world could work, grounded in law and principles. The existence of or imposition of peace before justice, is grounded in power dynamics and pragmatism. The world works between the two. Laws and institutions were created to make right, what might often would (through blood) but that left the door open for revenge and retaliation only to perpetuate conflicts. That is the basis of us calling ourselves civilised, but we aren't - we're on our way to it. It's the hypocrisy (of calling oneself civilised whilst the other barbaric) that rubs a lot of the Global South the wrong way, including Westerners themselves against their own political class. The hypocrite stands on a pedestal of their own making, pontificating about virtues they fail to embody and casting others as evil, for sins they themselves commit and attempt to conceal through propaganda and linguistic gymnastics. This lack of integrity, and gap between actions and words is what erodes the trust you rightly pointed to that needs to be built. This is why the world is bifurcating between the East and West, and parallel systems (BRICS) are being built which the West now bemoans. The next decades will be heavily predicated along these lines.

Not to say Elon Musk is a saint, or that any deceptions listed here aren’t true - the question is what are the users implying from listing his flaws? If the conclusion is to box him into category bad, this overlooks what is at times required in the game of business and power. It’s easy to misread someone’s intent as bad, when it’s misguided. The more you delve into the realm of cunning and power, the more it stains you. Knowledge of power is intoxicating, and once you grasp it, it seduces you to use it. No doubt Elon has wielded power to achieve his goals. He may not be a paragon of transparency but you don’t win in the game of business and power by telegraphing every move. He may neither be a genius in innovation and likes to play up his image of a real life Tony Stark for branding - but he has enough technical knowledge and leadership skills to steward geniuses under one roof towards a vision.

Conflating gender identity with biological sex muddies the waters and the discussion unnecessarily. We can acknowledge the reality of biological sex while recognising the validity and complexity of gender identity. Nature loves exceptions. Acknowledging these exceptions doesn't negate the broader reality of biological sex dimorphism. The reason hominids or we even exist is thanks to dimorphism. It's not an either/or situation. Just acknowledge that sex is typically binary while also accepting that there are individuals who don't fit neatly into those categories and are their own. Respecting these exceptions isn't about denying biology. Dimorphism runs deep. It's not just about genitals or secondary sex characteristics. It's in our bones, muscles and brains, right down to the cellular level. These differences aren't trivial - they've been crucial to our survival and evolution as a species. Yes, psychology plays a significant role in our sense of identity, no argument there. But to dismiss the role of biology is to willfully ignore the very foundation of what makes us human. You can't reduce "being a woman" to just what's in your head any more than you can reduce it to just what's between your legs. Both matter, interact and are inseparable parts of the whole. The extreme hypothetical of transplanting a female head on a male body isn’t currently even possible. Even then, that brain developed in a body, a body shaped by chromosomes, hormones, and even reproductive organs. To act like these biological realities are somehow secondary or optional is to engage in a kind of magical thinking that ignores how deeply interconnected our minds and bodies truly are.

If we’re talking social roles then that can be more malleable - such as what is woman hood or man hood. But if we’re talking biology then it’s clear. We can’t identify our way out of biological reality any more than we can identify our way out of the laws of gravity. If I identify as a balloon, will I defy gravity and start floating? Sounds nice, but it’ll never happen. This stems from a ideology not based in reality, but attempting to impose itself upon reality. There’s a difference between the quicksand of subjective reality and the solidity of object reality.

Agreed. There is a deep irony in how the very tools and systems created by Stage Orange - associated with rationality, capitalism, and scientific progress - have led to the resurgence of tribalistic behaviours and identities more characteristic of earlier stages like Stage Red (egocentric, power-oriented) and Stage Blue (authoritarian, rule-based) in Spiral Dynamics. Silicon Valley titans who are stage Orange poster children have given us social media platforms that are essentially digital campfires that bring out our inner stage red tribalism to dance around in echo chambers, beating our chests and throwing virtual spears at the 'other.' We’re still religious without religions - and behave dogmatically handing down commandments of groupthink we think is “right” while the “other” is wrong. Social justice warriors and stage green guardians of the galaxy are using Orange stage tech to religiously enforce their values like stage Blue dogmatists, all while claiming to be the vanguards of evolution. Humans are complex enough to encapsulate stage Red rage, stage Blue righteousness, stage Orange technology, and stage Green idealism. There's a dangerous trap in developmental theories that risk creating a new hierarchy that can be used to justify oppression the same way colonial powers once used concepts of "civilization" to justify their domination of "primitive" peoples. Those who use Spiral Dynamics in this way are often exhibiting the very traits they claim to have transcended. They're engaging in tribal thinking (Red), us-vs-them mentality (Blue), and rationalization of power structures (Orange), all while claiming to operate from a more "evolved" perspective. The truth is, human societies and individuals are far more complex than any single developmental model can capture. Palestinians, Israelis, or any other group aren't monoliths that can be neatly categorized into a single stage. They contain multitudes, with individuals and subgroups spanning various levels of development according to different metrics. Moreover, what constitutes "development" is itself a culturally loaded concept. The Green stage values of Western liberals might look like moral decay to those prioritizing traditional values, just as capitalist notions of progress might seem destructive to indigenous cultures prioritizing harmony with nature. Who gets to decide? When the excesses of "Stage Green" are criticised such as when the pronoun brigade broadly accept identifying themselves however they wish ( we literally got pregnant man emojis 🫃🏻) These constructs are often defended as just an overreach of a more advanced developmental stage green. But what if it's not an advanced stage at all, and instead just a delusion fueled by an ideology that isn't grounded in truth or reality? Why is this delusion considered better than the delusion of a religious fundamentalist who believes in martyrdom?