Consept

Flat earth theory is really going to struggle to keep going with the imminent passenger space travel from virgin galactic and others, would be interesting to see how that's explained, maybe it's a simulator or something. In terms of censorship I guess what you're saying is 'what harm can it do?' to have potentially false ideas out there, especially if there's even a slight chance they could be real. The issue is how they are presented, so this isn't a neutral scientist saying 'here's the evidence for flat earth and here's the evidence for a globe'. These theories turn into belief systems a kin with religion, where they actively try and convince others what they believe. I guess inherently there's nothing more wrong with that than any other religion, so if it isn't causing damage then there's not as much of problem. However if you have a privately owned platform then it may degrade the validity and integrity of that platform if you allow such vagrant misinformation posing as truth on it . For example imagine this forum if there were many topics discussing and going into detail about whether flat earth is true or not, most serious actualizers would never come on here. Its the same with youtube and Google, if every out there, debunked, theory was given the same weight as proven theories then most likely people wouldn't go to those platforms for information, at best it would be very confusing. So to me it makes sense from that perspective, however they should obviously be free to talk about it amongst themselves, the idea itself is not censored its just not promoted. But the problem is if people find what they think is truth they always want to share it.

Do you ever consider that blue especially but also orange are also incredibly sensitive, you could make the argument that they are even more sensitive than green, it's just that their sensitivities are more respected. For example if we look at blue and not even necessarily an extreme version. They tend to be religious, if anything was said about Jewish, Christian or Muslim people, even in an outdated language type of way they would be extremely sensitive to it. In fact there are anti-defamation organisations setup with the express intent of looking for these infractions that could even loosely be deemed as defamation, which then the person responsible will be sued or worse. I wont get into the backlash that has occurred from criticising Islam. Republicans are intensely sensitive, abortion, immigration, patriotism. The uproar and outrage from Kaepernick taking the knee was incredible. So to me it would seem people on both sides are sensitive, it's just that the green side is seen as comical or over the top, but I think this comes down to people being against the core ideas. The core ideas of green are not changing language, although both sides can do that to suit them, their ideas are about protecting the environment, treating animals as sentient beings, community etc. I think the reductionist way of taking them down to their most annoying tendancies is actually exceptional and a kind of whatever works marketing by the right, as it means you don't take them seriously and therefore don't look at the bigger picture. This strategy is played by both sides to some extent but the right are able to be more ruthless with it.

OK I get where you're coming and why you might say that. First off I'm not really interested in labelling you anything, I don't think that's the point of this discussion. Everyone has at least an implicit bias, so it is what it is. So your position is to teach kids just facts with no context or no theory so that they can come up with their own theories. This sounds good on the surface but I think you're underplaying the importance of theories in teaching. For one youre asking a lot of kids to just come up with coherent theories for themselves just by being presented with facts. Most subjects and teaching have theory and are almost based around teaching it, there's economic theory for example, if you do economics you will learn all type of theories to make you understand the vast data of economics. If you just said there was a crash and then there was a boom and then this happened and then that happened, it gives no context or understanding of the bigger picture or why anything could have happened. It might be that some theories are biased or have different perspectives of the same event, but that's why you don't just learn one theory, you learn many and decide for yourself what makes the most sense or maybe take bits of different theory. When I was in school and we learnt about the holocaust, we learnt about Hitlers eugenics theory, we even learnt about his ideas in 'Mein Kempf', this was important to get an idea of what his perspective was and why he did what he did. I don't think anyone would say this shouldn't be taught as long as its not taught as truth and is balanced with other theories. So this brings us to crt, why is there an issue teaching a theory where the perspective is that society is somewhat built upon systemic racism? People have generally been OK with theories if it doesn't affect their worldview. There's a fear that this new theory, whatever it might be, will change the world we want to see. Creationists campaign against atheism or evolution to be taught in schools because they want to uphold their 'truth'. This is the same with crt. Even if you say crt is bullshit why should it not be taught? I don't have a problem with creationism or eugenics being taught and not because I'm overly accepting, I think if it is a bullshit theory it won't stick and if you don't teach it as truth and teach other theories as well, then kids or adults even can come to their own conclusions. It's also important to teach because you can get to the root of why something happened. Yes I'm sure you can discern what is hate speech and what's not. In the same way people can discern what theories make sense and what dont. Crt has theory in the name so by definition it's not being taught as truth. Your saying that you want to be able to decide what is hate speech but at the same time you're saying people shouldnt be able to decide which theories make sense and which don't.

One way to look at it is there will always be a 'mainstream' narrative. This idea cancel culture has just come about now and that there was complete freedom of speech prior to whats happening now is plainly false. All thats happened is the mainstream narrative has shifted, for example someone who was lgbtq in the 80s didnt have freedom of speech to celebrate who they were or even legally to have sex, it only became legal for same sex, sexual acts in 2003. So there was freedom of speech for people who wanted to condemn lgbtq people but there wasnt for lgbtq people to actually be themselves. This wasnt the case for just lgbtq people, basically any minority had a sever limit to their freedom of speech if it went against the narrative in ways that were not just annoying but actually life limiting. As consciousness has risen these things have changed and maybe to some extent even over corrected, in terms of not being able to say black or whatever, but i still cant see how that would be worse than what was experienced by minorities. It would also seem to me that those that want it to be how it was before are not really happy about minorities getting equal footing. This is a somewhat survival instinct in which they want their group to still be privileged, but it would then follow that to halt this progress may be beneficial which is why cancel culture is boosted to be a much bigger problem than it actually is. Basically if i had to choose a mainstream narrative, one causing actual harm to people and the other meaning occasionally someone over reacts to someone saying the word black, id probably go for the former. This will also most likely correct itself as well anyway.

OK could you just clarify this please, i dont want to misrepresent you. Are you saying i get serotonin hit calling people racist because im right that there is systemic racism and maybe i enjoy pointing that out to people, or are you saying i get a serotonin hit because systemic racism doesnt actually exist and i just want to make people feel bad by calling them racist?

@StarfoxEpiphany OK so get to your final point, are you saying racism doesn't exist and black people are just blaming their struggles on race and exaggerating the effect of racism on them?

You're missing my point I'm talking about the actual penalties in law for different drug offences. If we compare crack cocaine to meth, meth users for possession may receive a fine and up to 3 years, for possession of crack you can get up to life imprisonment. Essentially in law the two drugs are treated completely differently despite the heavy damage they both do. So looking at that it seems like there's a racial element to it, although I might be wrong and maybe you can enlighten me.

The drug law comparison wouldn't be between other countries, for it to make sense and be considered racist, you would have to compare the penalties for another illegal drug within the same country that's user base is a different demographic. This isn't hard to do for example you can compare the sentences people got for weed over say crystal meth which has a mostly Caucasian user base, you'll find it's not even close, there were much harsher penalties imposed on black people using weed, despite the fact meth is a much more damaging drug to the community. Same can be said for the descrepencies in penalties for cocaine vs crack cocaine. Mostly the same drug but treated completely differently in the legal system. So you would have to find another country where there are harsher penalties imposed on drugs that are the same or less damaging than other drugs for your example to make sense.

OK I'm racist against people from Papua new Guinea, does that change the impact systemic racism?

True, which gives in an insight into the scope of how hard it would be to educate people on nuanced matters like this, especially given the issues that come about because of the lack of education. Children in fact would be open to these ideas which is what the adults in these groups are worried about lol. To actually create change going forward you would need theories like this taught in schools and i say that just from the reaction of the parents. In terms of crt itself, i dont know the ins and outs of it but its not above criticism and maybe its not the best theory but the point is that something needs to be taught that address the history and effect racism has had on, in this case, America. Anti-crt people seem to be saying nothing should be taught and these facts should be hidden, which would be the equivalent of Germany pretending the Nazis didnt happen and not teaching about it in school. If you know about Germany they've gone out of the way to address what happened during that period and make as sure as they can nothing like that would ever happen again, reparations, education, monuments and museums, dedicated to repairing the damage. When you consider millions more people were brutalised for a longer period of time during slavery and people are fighting for the statues of slavers to not be brought down, its a troublesome thought and speaks even more to way some kind of racial studies is extremely important.

It is hard to actually face the points that I've laid out, which says a lot on how crt is seen by certain people, 'you're just calling us racist, we're not racist, you're racist'. Anyway I'll leave this here, if anyone else wants to comment on the actual points raised and discuss further than deciding who's more racist, I'm open

As I said its not about who's racist, if we say everyone's racist that acknowledges a flaw that we all have as humans to favour our own group to varying degrees. Racism is more of a perception of your race as superior to other races, that's the dictionary definition. So if that's the case it would stand to reason that if you have a society that generally favours white people, then of course those that are not favoured will not be happy about it and want to point it out or redress the balance. This isn't necessarily exclusive to white people it would happen in any society, it just so happens white people have had the most power in an age where the consciousness level of humans has risen sufficiently enough to become aware of this bias that we have on a wider scale. But let's take my original point of red lining, I assume this is taught in crt. Now this is an actual thing that actually happened and had actual social and economic effects on black people to this day. So there are two options in terms of how to handle this one of many racially dark instances of American history. One is to teach it to young people in an effort that they don't repeat it and have an understanding of why it was done and why it will not lead to a fair and just society. The other option is to ignore it, pretend it never happened and label anyone that mentions it as 'race hustlers' or people with 'victim complexes'. Essentially do we want to deny reality and history and all its implications or do we want to embrace and learn from it?

Feel free to address the actual point in my post

Yes you are right, all humans are racist to some degree, but the problem is how that racism affects others. For example in 60s up until even the 90s red lining was a common thing, meaning that black people literally couldn't by properties as they wouldn't be given loans or they would drive the house prices down of certain areas. If you think on this for a second it would mean that the generational wealth and equity built up for the last 60 years just by owning a house is non-existent. This is obviously a racist practice that had a massive affect on black families and incorporated future consequences. Now if black people are racist, let's even say they are as racist as white people were or are, what practice or policy could they implement that would affect white people in the same way as red lining?

Break it down though, what's your take on racism over the last 100 years? Does it exist, does it not have an effect on today? Expand on your take

The key with this is that it is a theory, in reality you can teach any theory that does not in anyway equal that kids are being indoctrinated. For example I learnt Hitlers theory on eugenics in history, this gives context for why he believed what he did and did what he did, but obviously the theory didnt ring true for me and theres pretty solid scientific criticisms against it. But to say that it shouldnt be taught because it might indoctrinate kids into nazism would be ridiculous. This is similar with crt, if though what they say rings true then that is just a pill i think people need to swallow. If the theory was completely outlandish like eugenics i dont think there would be much fuss made, the fact that so many people of a similar type are worried about it, shows that it hits home in some way. Its almost like a collective reaction to actually addressing race, ultimately even if this isnt the best way to do it, these people will have a problem addressing race on any level, I cant actually envision a way that they would happily address it.

Whats your perspective though do you think race has not been an issue at all over the last say 100 years?

It is very interesting I always wondered what a turquoise and coral conversation would be like, now I guess we know

Like i said i might be wrong and looking at the descriptions of Indigo and Violet, its not impossible for someone to be at those stages, I dont know if youve experienced telepathy or something like that which is trait of Indigo or if you perceive light beings, which is a trait of Violet, id be interested and open to know though. Numbers wise Wilbur estimated turquoise to be less than 0.1% of the population, i would say this is an overestimate but then if you look at how many might be higher than that it has to be minuscule and would include the most developed people in the history of humanity, which you may be of course but I automatically dont take that at face value, just because of how rare it would be.

I always doubt people when they claim to be turquoise or above, its like literally saying im the most developed human being that has ever existed. It could be true and maybe you are and im just projecting on you but i do find it hard to take seriously, no offence.

You might like this guys channel, hives a good insight into the nature of people's beliefs https://youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210

" Thimerosal, the organic compound used as a preservative in some vaccines, breaks down in the body into ethyl mercury. Since our bodies can remove ethyl mercury, it doesn’t bioaccumulate. This is very different from methyl mercury, found in trace amounts in certain fish like tuna. Methyl mercury is hard for our bodies to remove and can bioaccumulate. It’s the buildup of mercury over time that can be dangerous, which is why the FDA recommends limiting consumption of certain varieties of fish. While both compounds contain mercury, the two molecules are structurally different and behave differently in our bodies. It’s similar to the difference between ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol. The former is found in beer and wine and used as a social lubricant, while the latter is used in things like antifreeze and is highly toxic. Simply stating some vaccines contain mercury is like saying “OMG! Beer contains antifreeze!” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/20/vaccines-meteors-and-why-details-matter/amp/

You are right of course when you put what I said in the context you've put it in but I didn't actually mean what you were talking about, which is on me as I wasn't clear enough. When I say green has bias toward everything natural what I mean is in terms of medicine or food or even fabrics and materials. For example there's an aversion to modern medicine as it's seen as unnatural or made in a lab. This can be quite damaging as a green person may not take modern medicine if they have cancer for example or they may advise people who have it not to take it. There's also a condition now where people can get obsessed with eating healthy and it can affect them quite badly. When I say man made I'm speaking on things made in a lab where the process isn't 'natural', many greens have problems with these things.

Some issues I see with green, for one one is a nature fallacy, in which everything that is 'natural' is automatically good and anything that's man made or made by a corporation is bad. There's a complete rejection of orange which of course needs to be integrated. There's many elements of magical thinking in the new age movement in the form of crystals and manifestation etc. The core of this of course is not limited to green, it's something that's seen up and down the spiral, ie rejection of the previous memes. Also its not everyone in green that had these issues I would say it's the more toxic element. Eventually I think these issues get overcome as well its just part of the journey

@kras 6 dates is quite a lot imo without anything sexual happening. What you have to ask yourself is would she act the same way if she was going out with someone shes really attracted to? Maybe she would and if thats the case then just decide whether you like her enough to give all that attention to her and potentially have a relationship with her in the future. But most likely shes slept with guys within 3 dates before and probably still would in the future, so in that case youve either got to address why you were treated differently and its probably what Leo said about the boyfriend frame rather than the playful jerk. So its probably not too late to change your frame with her but more for the future work on your game and also have standard that if you feel the girl is not 'rip your clothes off into you' then just let it go, otherwise its like youre begging for scraps.