Scholar

If you think you can out-define yourself out of green by saying the death penalty is appropriate, I don't knwo what to tell you. You are defining yourself by your reaction to pigs, and now dressing yourself as a pig so the pigs don't think you're a chicken. You bathe in their shit just so you stink as much as they and can proclaim yourself as not as clean as all those pesky, pathetic chickens. This isn't how you save the US. There are far deeper problems here, and the real reason why stage green is perceived as giant pussies is because they are giant pussies. They need to learn how to face adversity, not saying things that sound mean because it will make others think they are cool.

Yes I know, you don't respect us intellectually, fundamentally. Leo we don't need you to trick us into questioning our liberal assumptions by making senseless, provocative statements about the nature of the death penalty. Most people will just ape what you say and not think about anything, and adjust their worldview to your opinion, which is why saying such things can be detrimental. The death penalty is not where the "limits of liberalism" are. Good conservatism is found in social values, that are not coerced but maintained through celebration and encouragement. Abandoning the police is liberalism going too far. Elon Musk disintegrating the US bureaucracy is liberalism gone too far. The death penalty ain't it.

If he said that he is even more naive than I thought. You can't just kill someone instantly because this would obviously make error in the system absurdly high. There have to be lengthy legal processes, you can't just be like "Judge said you day, so you die tomorrow.". You have appeals, it drags on for years before a final decision is made, which is why it has such a high cost. And even then innocent people get executed, despite all of this "assurance" and lengthy process. You can't shorten the process and not expect more innocent individuals to get killed, especially if they can just get killed instantly.

If you were some dude on reddit, I'd have more sympathy. The fact that you are making these arguments while being so educated and "conscious" means something is seriously wrong. Again, the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torment, it takes years before the death occurs. It is more expensive than a life-sentence. It causes torment to family members, it encourages revenge thinking and discourages compassion. It does kill innocent people because the justice system is flawed and always will be (stop avoiding the costs that will be certain). There is no evidence it has a discouraging effect on any crime. Life sentences are already significantly severe, some argue they are in fact more severe than the death penalty. And your argument is "We do it because, when you kill someone you gotta die!". That's the argument? I really hope this is not how you usually engage in moral reasoning. You gave no benefit to the death penalty, you just says "it has to be done cause it's fair!", while I provide you with a tremendous amount of downsides. Look, I don't care this much about the death penalty, what disturbs me is the way you reason about this.

Firstly, eventually, of course we will have to evolve to showing kindness towards especially mass murderers. Not in some sort of naive way, as you here suggest as a dunk of stage green naivety, but a genuine, structured compassion that maintains society while also allowing us to grow. Many mass murderers were traumatized, mentally ill, abused. If you do not have compassion, you will never get rid of this phenomena, because if you cannot recognize their humanity you will never even attempt to find a way to prevent them from becoming what they became. What even is the point of the killing? Again, the death penality has not shown to have any effect on criminality, nor on mass-murders. Mass murders happen in a context that will be completely removed from any impact the death penalty could have. Most of these people do it with the expectation of suicide or death anyways. And of course it's cruel, the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torture. Just read up on the torment it inflicts on individuals. And again, you completely avoid the necessary cost that will come with such laws, which is innocent people getting killed by the state. If you think that is avoidable, you don't understand the justice system. And again, to what end? What is the point of the death penality. To discourage mass murderers? How naive of a world view can you have if you think a mass murderer would think to themselves "Oh no, I better not kill a bunch of people because they have the death penalty on this". That's just an absurd picture, if you are committing such a crime there won't be any thoughts of the consequences. Yes, it does contradict kindness and love, it obviously does.

Then why do more evolved societies move away from the death penalty? Understand that. Just because the US is filled with a much of lead-brained Christians does not mean that the "liberals have gone too far" by abandoning the death penalty. This is what I mean when I say this makes you deeply unserious. "Both are workable systems", as if you had no idea or sense of the gravity of what it means for the state to kill people who are no longer a threat. People who are sons and daughters, wifes and husbands. People who might regret what they did, who might grow in consciousness. What does it mean that you so trivially condemn individuals to death, as if it meant nothing? These are simply beings like you and me. And what about the innocent individuals who get killed? Is that workable too? How can this be acceptable, when there is no benefit to such punishments? I know exactly what your actual point is, but that is precisely what I think is so unsophisticated about it. You want to signal that "Reality is harsh, and sometimes society will need to structure itself in certain ways to have things run smoothly, that's just how it is", but nothing about this is insightful fundamentally, because it is removed from an actual analysis of the thing at question. It's like saying "Well I am not against putting people in prison for infidelity within a marriage. People need to learn that marriage is a serious thing, we have way too many people taking the institution of the family for granted..." And then that's it, no further substance, no actual contending with the different perspectives on the matter other than "The liberals are too soft". Okay, you are beyond the liberals, but where are the arguments?

While you are not a utilitarian, the tendencies we observe here are utilitarian. In the end your stance simply is "for the greater good", but that notion will be deeply subjective. The problem is that you think your notion of the greater good is not subjective. That the "higher consciousness" thing to do is to believe that "seriousness and strictness" is the proper response. This is perverse in two ways: You are deluding yourself that your own, personal perception (which as far as I can see is significantly informed by your personality, not merely your level of consciousness) is an objective perception, while equally maintaining that in fact, you don't believe there is an objective perception. Most of what you do is an attempted expression of your sense of higher consciousness. Something like the death penality is a serious thing, and trivially asserting it to be a good thing, and that it has no negative impact on the world, and somehow contributes to the "seriousness" of society, is a deeply unserious thing if one has not seriously thought about it. It's basically using politics and morality as an expression of a spiritual ego.

I get the impression that you were arguing that he did do no wrong for what he did and that therefore he should go free. If this is not the case then my post is not as relevant. And of course killing one meat eater will do a lot to save animals. Basic market principles necessitate this. However, in fact, killing one CEO will literally not change anything because they will just get instantly replaced by someone else. But again, it's only natural to get into justifing your evil, the same as the CEO would if he were to face judgement.

There is no such thing as going beyond human morality, that's a profoundly silly notion. Every rule and "should" you will make up will be human morality. You cannot reject your own nature this way, and any attempt of doing so will lead to deeply perverse and, ironically, unharmonious ways of living. That's the problem with utilitarianism. The utiltiarian wants the best for the world, but he does not realize that, to implement his utilitarianism, it would destroy the very thing that makes humans strive for Good in the first place. By replacing the Good, the inner love and compassion, with an abstraction like utility, or "high consciousness", will remove each individual from their own nature, which is the nature which had motivated the utilitarianism in the first place. By removing oneself from this nature, one makes it impossible to see reality for what it is, and makes it impossible to grow in relationship to it. That is basically the problem. If you reject humanity, you reject reality. Humanity in this sense means your own nature, your own Will. The more alienated you are from your true Will, the most havoc you will cause in this world. And what I say is not a personal attack against Leo. While it might be hurtful, I am saying these things because I believe them to be accurate, and I believe that both he and the forum might extract value from them.

Yes, and I think meat eating is evil and genocidal. Does that mean meat eaters deserve death, because if I kill them, I save a thousand individuals from torture, rape and death? Do I get to be the executioner in this case, or does that simply not fit into your self-serving notions of ethics?

His audience is toxic but one of the least toxic communities in the political sphere (as far as streamers go). The idea that they obsessively stalk anyone, beyond what is normal for communities of his size, is just something people make up, and repeat so many times that people believe it because everyone says so. Hasan's community is far worse, as an example.

The reason why Leo is going on these sociopath rants is because he wants to virtue signal how conscious he is, that he is able to go beyond common human morality to such a degree that he is willing to accept things like death if it serves the greater unity. That's it. There is literally nothing more to it, he has done absolutely zero research on the efficacy of the death penality, of it's ethical implications, of it's costs. The reality is that a lot of Leo's statements are basically a function of narcissistic objects that he seeks to fullfill through this forum. The problem with this is of course that Leo never has to face the consequences of his ignorance, given how comfortable he lives. He will never face the dread and terror, so he can easily dismiss all of it for the greater good. Such attitudes are fundamentally lower in consciousness, because they reject compassion. Leo has zero sympathy for individuals who transgress his personal stances of what is best for society, not because he is somehow the ultimate utilitarian God-mind, but simply because he never did care, and he never will. Leo simply lacks empathy to a significant degree.

The problem is that morality is subjective, and you don't understand what it would mean, on a systemic level, for civility to be replaced by personal-ethics vigilantism. Do you eat meat? If so, why shouldn't a vegan poison your next meal, if you are basically a person who pays for murder and rape to occur? The CEO is bad, but what about you? How evil are you for living in a society of mass animal rape, torture and murder, but doing nothing about it? In fact, you gladly benefit from it, and when confronted about it, much like the CEO, you will find any excuse possible to dismiss the absurd, self-serving evil that you engage it. You don't understand what it means to have a society that greenlights killing on the basis of morally progressive notions. Partly you don't understand this is because you are far more primitive and lacking in moral development than you assume. The only reason why you are so upset about this CEO, and not about any meat-eater that you walk across the street, is because it is trendy to talk about socialism on social meda. That is literally the only reason, you are basically a NPCs drone that has been brainwashed by a technology and the society around you. Start using your mind to question yourself deeply, because in essence, you are no different than the CEO in your profound ignorance and moral depravity. You are willing to kill others, not realizing that you yourself are worthy to be killed if you were judged by your own moral standards in a way that was ethically consistent.

Nobody is denying this. None of this means that the law should operate from utilitarian stance, but from a place of principle. It is essential that these principles are maintained to the highest degree possible, that in the eyes of the law, all men are equal. Yes, everything in society will seek to bias itself towards a self-serving survival agenda. But for the greater system to function, the principles are essential and must be upheld. We cannot have a law that treats rich peopel better than the poor people, and it should be obvious why this cannot be the principled stance, and why society at each point has to do it's utmost to abide by it's principles to the greatest degree possible.

Of course it does lower our consciousness. The death penalty is far more costly and it gives the state the completely unnecessary ability to kill individuals who are defenseless. There is zero benefit to the death penality, and only negatives, like the costliness, the low consciousness attitudes it encourages in people (revengeful thinking and a fundamental lack of compassion and understanding of why people commit such crimes, which means the root cause will not be addressed). There is a reason why more developed societies do not engage in the death penalty, and view it as a violation of their principles of their own humanity. A major downsite is that any system will be flawed, and therefore, innocent individuals will be killed. The death penalty is basically one of the most severe forms of psychological torture there is, and subjecting even one innocent person to it is not worth killing a thousand criminals. There is also no evidence that the death penalty in any way discourages individuals from committing crimes. I think you are just very pampered and have a dysfunctional relationship to violence. You don't understand violence, partly because of your severe rejection of it. This makes you unable to understand trauma, partly because you never experienced it and likely have little compassion for people who did, and how it transformed them. Therefore, it is easy for you to dehumanize criminals and people who commit such acts, as you do with people who you call ignorant, stupid and so forth. This is apparent from your videos and your expression of disgust towards aggression and aggressive people. Life in prison is in no way "coddling" criminals. You are incredibly immature in the way you attempt to deal with undesirable behavior. This is not a surprise though, it seems to be a function of your general sense of superiority and lack of empathy towards individuals you consider "low consciousness". This is basically the result of years of narcissistic attitudes and dehumanization of individuals who are ignorant, and your general tendencies for arrogance and superiority thinking.

There is the saying, what you resist, persists. Any tripper will understand that. And this dynamic is partly the case because attention is life-giving, in a fundamental sense. In a metaphysical sense, existence is attention, life is attention. In a dynamic sense, attention is life-defining. This means that that which you will give attention to will define you. In an evolutionary sense this is clear: The functionality of a body and mind is precisely a reaction to the attention the organism must give to survive and procreate. When you give attention to Trump, and you react to him, that reaction will define your being, it will define your existence the moment you react to it. This can be imagine like a plant that must react to it's surroundings to grow and reach the light. Each obstacle in the way of the plant defines the plant, it's shape, it's path of growth. This, in a deeper sense, is an interplay of the fundamental nature of Duality. Things do not merely come in opposites, but rather, opposites are codefining. The opposites require each other for their own existence, in a sense, the opposites yearn for one another. Life and death are essential parts of one another for this reason. Twin dualities are fundamental in this way: When you react to something, not only are you beginning to be defined by the thing you react to, but importantly, you equally define the thing you react to. Trump is not merely being given existence through your attention, more importantly, the nature of Trump is determined by your reaction to him, as he equally resists your reaction to him, which in turn defines him. This means we observe the twinship as the codependent, codefining nature of parts of reality. During a dream or psychedelic trip, this twinship within the self is obvious. Your fears become manifest, and as you resist your fears, you define them through your resistance. The interdependence is clear, and the resolution of that fear will stem from how the interaction transpires. The fear can deepen through a further resistance, or the fear can be transformed, by transforming you in the first place. Notice this, that the fear ceases (it doesn't cease, it transforms) as a result of that very fear changing your nature (by for example overcoming the object of resistance through acceptance and integration). The grow requires your twin, the fear, as you either define yourself more clearly, more vividly, or unify into a transcendend form of existence. This is the nature of consciousness, and in a societal scale, this is the nature of the collective consciousness, amplified by technologies that, of course, select for attention as their primary currency. This is why it is not as simple as not giving it attention, because reality is not entirely determined by your attention. The shadow, that which is beyond attention, is always present. A neglecting of the shadow, a denial of it, will lead to the growth of the shadow. You cannot deny the existence of your twin, because it defines your very nature. You cannot be complete, unified, if you do not recognize it's presence. This is why both censoring and attacking these things does not make them go away. What is required is a transcendence, fundamentally through unification. Solipsism is true only in so far as the world is your Shadow, and each part within the world plays its role in defining you, as you define it.

lol, the Return of the Schizos. But yeah it's obvious that Destiny always had some serious self-control issues, he might be a sex-addict to be honest, although given we don't have a full picture it's hard to say what exactly happened.

This is delusional thinking. They already are dealing catastrophic damage to themselves by sacrificing generations of men to this war. This already proves that they do not care about this demographic issue you are describing. The essential reason for why a free Ukraine cannot be possible under the imperialistc Russian regime is because it threatens their own regime. There cannot be an alternative in their sphere of influence, especially with such deep cultural ties, that will allow freedom and western values and prosperity, giving the russian population a constant reminder that their brothers and sisters (sometimes literally) live far better, more free and prosperous lifes than they do.

The worry today is that people are so disconnected from reality, and hallucination of reality is so prevalent, that they might recontextualize a contact with reality with a further delusion. The germans after world war 1 are a good example. They suffered the consequences of their war, and instead of taking accountability, Hitler exploited it to frame the german people as victims, and the jewish people as the perpetrators. That's the scary thing about human beings, that sometimes reality will not wake them up but simply lead to more delusions. And a large portion of the US population basically will stand behind Trump no matter what happens. You can already see the attitudes of them changing, where they will now accept inflation and economic hardship in favor of american isolationism, when they would previously not accept any hardship. When people are radicalized, they might simply be willing to make the sacrifices to maintain their delusions. This is not unique to Jihadis, it has happened throughout history. Just look at the Russians and what their population is willing to endure for their loyalty towards Putin and the russian nation. Never would we have thought that people would be willing to die in a world war 2 type scenario as cannon fodder to gain a few inches of land for their leaders imperial ambitions. We thought people would no longer be willing to engage in such sacrifices as a result of peace and progress. But this is simply not the case, we were wrong. The hope is that there are not yet enough people to allow for such a transformation of the political system. But in nazi germany, it didn't even require a majority to achieve that. Delusion and ignorance is exceptionally dangerous. And yes I don't like spending any time on this topic either, it's absolutely assinine that I have to think about this in the first place, and waste my time and energy on this. The problem with this is that if you get hung up on the culture, and react against it, you will be defined by the culture as well, which will just increase foolishness. Like all the atheists who fight against religious people. They are better than the Christians, but they have defined themselves through opposition to such a degree that they are equally stuck in the primitive culture of today as the Christians are. It's like, just to be able to engage with these topic requires you to engage in primitivity that will then lead to you wasting your time on primitivity rather than on your higher ideals. But at this point it feels like it would be irresponsible not to contribute. If every reasonable person removes themselves from politics because of how degenerate it has become, then politics will only get worse, and that can end in disaster. So that is the question, do I just focus on my life purpose and pretend the world does not exist? I truly wish I could, but it does not seem like this can be afforded anymore. This is partly because I don't even see a solution in sight. Social media is just getting worse and worse, people are becoming more ignorant, more biased, more self-serving. Popular media is just filled with vile, disrespectful individuals who basically are just arrogant and hateful. And these people are the role models for the youth, amplified on steroids by never before seen technology.

I agree that they don't think they will lose, what I mean by the understanding is that there is an intuitive grasp that progress eventually will undermine their world view and what is common to them, which is true. It threatens their identity, which is why they react against it so harshly. This is what a lot of progressives don't understand about bigotry and conservatism in general, it is rooted in identity. There is actually an easy way to avoid the backlash by celebrating those aspects of past worldviews that are positive. For example, with a Christian, you can focus on elevating good aspects of Christianity, like ideas around love and compassion, forgiveness, understanding sin in the context of a failure, not evil. Things like honesty and truthfulness. Maybe some of the traditions you can celebrate and even integrate it into your progressive culture. But this is not possibly at lower stages like orange and green because their identities tend to evolve through a rejection of past elements, which often can be an unhealthy progression. A typical example is a teenager who resist the oppressive norms of stage blue by being reactionary and specifically negating those values. Being rude, being uncivilized, being anarchical, maybe even being a satanist in the extreme. Stage green has been engaging in this type of thing a lot, rejecting white culture, institutions like the police and so forth as a way to create an identity that rejects the flaws in those things. The problem with that approach is that you lose contact to those things, which will make it impossible to allow those things to progress themselves. If you reject the police, it will grow more and more corrupt. You have to love the police to be able to improve it, you have to see the potential in it. In a similar manner, even if it is difficult, one has to identify the potential in the lower stages and amplify those. When speak to Christians, appeal to the modern ideal of Christ, the ideals of compassion, humility, loving thy neighbour and so forth. Things that such individuals can relate to and that are positive. The ideal way of societal progress is to maintain an identity that collectively evolves. A lot of friction occurs because of the split in identity that occurs as people abandon the common culture and attempt to create a counter-culture. Although the counter-cultures can integrate into the main culture, as long as there is not too much friction. But given the time of social media, in which hostility is amplified to the maximal degree, that the only thing that is amplified are the differences in identities to cause as much engagement as possible through cultural war, this basically becomes impossible. And this is not a trivial thing, this is actually an existential problem that we have to solve. It's a more pressing issue than Climate change, and really any other issue, because every other issue becomes impossible to solve as long as this problem is present. You can see this everywhere now, that stages identify themselves through the rejection and opposition of the other stages. As soon as this happens, evolution through the evolving of individuals becomes significantly hampered. Previously, stage orange perceived stage green as cringe and airy fairy, but because of the radical the rejection of stage orange by green, it grew into viewing stage green as a genuine threat "they want to take my freedom away". When the conservatives look at rock-n-roll and realize "Oh they just want to have fun and be free", they might reluctantly tolerate it. But if they start thinking "Oh, rock-n-roll wants to destroy Christianity!", that's when things start locking up.

The reality is that all of this is literally fueled by conservitards who cannot let go of the past. They do not want to watch their depraved, outdated, unnatural, unsophisticated and self-serving world views die. But their world views are doomed to die, because of how corrupt and depraved they are. But to hang on a little longer, they are willing to make a deal with the devil. You can see this with people like Ben Shapiro, who know that Trump is utterly corrupt and a threat to american democracy. But after realizing he will run again for president, his tune changed. Suddenly he would not speak ill of Trump, because if Trump loses, it means the progressive win, which means his conservitard world view is one step closer to extinction. You have to understand that people like him are perfectly willing to risk seeing the world burn in hopes that they can maintain their cherishes view of the world. This is what identity fundamentally entails. This is why progress must come slowly, almost invisibly. When the conservatives notice their certain doom, they resist, and they often resist to such a degree that the only solution becomes war. So, for most of history progress comes in such small steps that the conservatives don't even know that their worldviews are fading away. But now they do know, they are self-aware enough to realize that every step of progress, no matter how mundane, will eventually spell their doom. They understand this, so that's why they will resist everything that is progressive, in an utterly mindless fashion. Remember, the conservatives of today are the progressives of the yesterday, and the progressives of today are the conservatives of tomorrow. Conservatives do not stand up for the "values of the past", they stand up for the values they grew up with, which are values that progressives had fought for. You don't see a lot of conservaties engaging only in missionary sex because it is the most conducive to procreation. You don't hear them condemn rock-n-roll. You hear them plapper about what is unfamiliar to them, what they personally have not grown to understand as the common world. This is why conservatism is fundamentally self-serving and egotistical. It is all about maintaining your personal timecapsule of the world as you have come to understand and love it during your childhood.

But nobody is saying he doesn't self-delude himself into thinking this isnt a self-serving power grab. Like Hitler, he probably has amazing justifications for everything he does. Yes, we get the point, every human thinks what they do is justified. How the fuck does that relate to ANYTHING any of us said? What is the point of bringing this obvious fact about human psychology up each time someone points out Elon's corruption and desire to entrench more of his power and consolidate as much wealth in his own hands? This isn't some sort of writing class on having empathy for the bad guys so you can write more compelling villains for your tragicomedy, this is real life, where we describe the relevant, politically functional dynamics. We don't need your 101 psychology class, jesus christ.

Spiral Dynamics does not work in the age of social media. The dynamics have completely changed through the invention of that technology. Someone will have to build a new model on new data-sets that will be relevant to the 21st century and beyond. While some things might still hold true, the evolutionary pathways are completely altered simply because of the new ways identities get to express themselves in this environment.

That's not an argument lmao. You can't look at Hitler before his rise and go like "Boy who cried wofl". Yes, there is a balance to be struck here. Why do I have to explain this to you as if you were sub 90 IQ. Look at what is going on, it's absolute insanity, already the damage is monumental, and you are still going "Trump derangement syndrome" like some sort of cucked NPC who hasn't been given enough lines of dialogue to be gifted with even a semblance of intelligence and agency. For the love of God, look at what is happening in your country. You criminalized abortion, your president is spreading literal russian propaganda and completely fabricated information. Elon Musk, the richest man alive, has complete control over the most meaningful information technology in your country, and is blatantly using it to spread his own agenda and propagandize the entire world, and is now in charge of the very institutions (and dismantling them as we speak) which are supposed to put a check on his oligarchal power. Donald Trump is literally doing everything he possibly can to dismantle your democracy and all checks on power you have. You can't just treat politics like a wrestling match. This is real life, people are actually dying, right now, because of all the things Donald Trump has done.

It seems that my explanation was not clear enough. To boil it down to idiocracy level logic: If I am wrong, worst thing that happens is I worried too much. If you are wrong, you lose your democracy, you might enter civil war, and China, Iran and Russia will exploit the fall of the US to basically go for a world war type power grab.