Emerald

But you can't just skip from Green to Yellow. That's not the way societal evolution works. The system is playing out exactly the way it needs to to evolve. Don't try to rush it. There will be no skipping of Green. So, let the wisdom of Green do its work.

You just have no vision for why this is so impactful, and how this can lead to big positive changes in weeding out the corruption and manipulation inherent in the way that things currently are. And you've said absolutely nothing about the corruption that this has laid bare for all to see. It's things like this Gamestop situation that make average people more conscious of the corruption in the system... which includes these hedge fund managers that contribute nothing of substance to society, but make money by tanking businesses and destroying jobs. Now, because of these "scummy" day-traders, regular people are seeing that the system is rigged and has always been rigged in favor of Wall Street. And we can watch and see how quickly the rules are changed for them. With the Robinhood App halting trading, they're doing the equivalent of flipping the chess board once the elites start to lose. And so many people are seeing this and recognizing that average people have real power when they organize. And that's huge! So, don't go into some classist anti-peasant nonsense where you get selectively outraged at the peasantry doing things that the owner class has been doing the whole time. If you give it a shoulder-shrug when hedge fund managers are doing it, I expect the same response when average people start doing it. Otherwise, it's just selective outrage and a reflection of your personal biases. Recognize this for the force of change that it is, and don't get upset when a group of people that are subject to constant class warfare actually fight back and actually play the game that's been rigged against them and win. Can't you see that this has thrown a bit of a monkey-wrench in the corruption machine?

Being racist is what happens when someone projects their own Shadow onto a whole group of people that they consider "other." It is what happens people are unconscious... they project onto large groups of people as a result of that unconsciousness. But it isn't an inherent aspect of human nature. So, don't go excusing unconscious behavior because you think it's just the way that human beings are... because you're conveniently leaving out the fact that human beings are capable of being more conscious and forming deep bonds with people of any race or nationality. Basically, don't excuse your own unconsciousness and pass it off as "nature."

Oh just stop it with your gaslighting of @Preety_India. You know that calling someone "brown mouth" is degrading. It's racist. Period. Stop antagonizing.

I don't think so. I think they recognize the possibility of average people banding together and using the mega-wealthy's own medicine against them. And cracking down on Reddit simply won't address this issue at a deep enough level to secure the interests of the owner class. It's like cutting off one of the heads of a Hydra. Crack down on Reddit and a thousand other anonymous communities like it will pop up JUST for the purpose of playing this game. And now that this is a well-known phenomena TONS of people will be interested in doing it. So, there will absolutely need to be legislation passed if the goal is to protect the money and power of the owner class... which it is. This will happen fast.

What I'm saying is that this will lead to SOME kind of legislation. They're not going to leave this lever of manipulation open to the public, now that this has happened. So, I do expect big legislative changes... and fast. The question is big good changes... or big bad changes.

Yes. Now hopefully there will ACTUALLY be regulation on market exploitation where the mega-wealthy manipulate the market to benefit themselves... which is the status quo. But it just goes to show you that the wealthy and powerful on Wall Street can exploit the market all they want and put businesses under and destroy jobs to make money, free of consequence. But then, when regular people organize themselves and play the SAME EXACT game but in a way that obstructs the financial interests of the owner class, suddenly all bets are off and we have to shut it down right away. They even shut down the market for this. And then bail all these market manipulating hedge funds out. It's these times where we will really see the true colors and class inconsistencies of those in the government. I just hope that people don't buy the propaganda that what the Redditors did was some kind of unique evil. I hope realize that the Redditors are just playing by the rules in the same exact game that Wall Street has been playing. The main difference is that this actually saved a company and saved jobs. Maybe now, this lever of unfair market manipulation will have to be closed.... or (more likely) perhaps they'll just change the market rules to where you have to have at least $5k to begin investing or some other thing to siphon out middle income investors. Or perhaps they'll put more gateways to investing in stock that can only be bypassed if you have a certain amount of money. I don't know what they'll do. But you know that they'll do something... probably something shady.

This is the bro-bias that @aurum was talking about. Men who fight do ruin parties that way too by making others feel unsafe. As a woman, I can tell you from firsthand experience that it's genuinely scary to be in a place where men are fighting. But it doesn't perhaps bother you because of the way that they're ruining the party... as you as a guy can relate to it better. This is where the bias comes in. But women complaining and being wet blankets gets under your skin because of the meaning you make of their brand of negativity. So, even if they are objectively causing less chaos than guys who get into fights at parties, it feels more chaotic to you because it is a feminine form of negativity.

I'm not saying that there would be no differences in the way the invasion of Iraq would have happened. Bush was certainly a war hawk. But I'm 99.9% sure there would have been one. I don't see why you think Gore or Clinton would be all that much different. Democrats certainly do their fair share of regime change warfare and still supply arms to dictators and apartheid states. How do you honestly think Gore would have responded in the aftermath of 9/11? Also, "firing some missiles is the norm" specifically in this country's corrupt imperialist foreign policy. It shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Offensive warfare shouldn't be accepted as normal.

Both Clinton and Obama continued the offensive warfare in their terms as president. So, I don't see why you think Gore would have been much different. In fact, Clinton had already done a missile strikes on Iraq. So, I'm sure Gore would have invaded Iraq. He probably would have handled it slightly differently... especially in the way he spoke about it to the American people though. Now, he probably wouldn't have done the Guantanamo waterboarding things, as that seemed unique to Bush's sensibilities. But I'm sure an Iraq invasion would have happened regardless of political leadership as there was financial interest in doing so... lots of oil there. Plus, the owners of the military industrial complex benefit from forever wars because middle class Americans will feel more okay with giving so much of their tax money to the bloated military budget if you can convince them that it's for "defense". So, 9/11 was essentially exploited to drum up fear in the American people so that they support more war... and to justify invading Iraq because the average American didn't understand then that a group of terrorist hijackers from Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with Iraq. And of course, that wasn't the end to how 9/11 was used to justify offensive warfare in the Middle East. And of course, because 9/11 was such a godsend to those that have financial interests in warfare, they probably would have made sure their bases were covered by "donating to" whoever happened to be president. So, I'm sure that they wouldn't have turned down what was a golden opportunity from their point of view.

Well said!

Totally agree

That's true that the Covid botching is blood on the hands of Republicans. Republicans are quite a bit worse domestically, for sure. As I said, that's why I personally was relieved when Biden got the presidency. But if we look past their domestic impact and look toward foreign policy, we can see that those in the most vulnerable positions are suffering the same amount with both Democrats and Republicans at the helm. We as Americans, can only see Democrats and Republicans as drastically different because we exist inside the protective bubble of America. But if you're a civilian in a foreign country that we've occupied, they would likely suffer just as much regardless of who's in office. "So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of" I said many people in the Democratic base are Green on the spiral... not America in general. Democrats know that they will have to please Green-minded people. So, of course they have to angle their moral leadership in such a way that it doesn't alienate Green... even though the substance of what they're doing is very Orange... and usually very toxic Orange at that. Also, when it comes to development and education of the people, you may see this as happenstance and just a reflection of individual character. But that makes the same mistake that Libertarians who grew up with wealth make about assuming why people are poor. The way that governments and the powerful stay in power is often because the masses are given 'bread and circuses' to keep them depoliticized. Essentially, those in powerful positions want to maintain their power. And an educated and politically informed and engaged populace increases the potential for challenges to power. Prior to the internet, it has always been the case that mainstream media would siphon out most dissident angles to the stories that they share. And of course, public schools would teach things a particular way to either present half-truths about how things work or simply leave it out of the curriculum altogether. No institution is going to give instructions towards its owner's undoing. Now, I'm not saying it's some big cabal of elites behind the curtain doing this. It's just that a lot of very wealthy people own politicians and industries... and thus have a lot of power and control over what the masses see vs what they don't. And it can really be boiled down to the profit motive. But now that the internet exists, we have a different issue. It's that the truth gets lost in a pile of lies. And so, instead of keeping people de-politicized, things are angled in such a way that make people hyper-politicized around a lot of misinformation and magicianry.

Exactly

But you were the one that just brought up with your concerns about how the Vegan diet would cause these issues around expansion of farmland. That's what you said your concern was... that if we all went Vegan, we'd take up too much farmland and cause all these environmental problem. And now, I've answered to your concerns about farmlands expansion and environmental issues it causes and presented you with information that shows that Veganism would actually decrease the amount of farmland used because we wouldn't be farming cattle that eat a ton more crops than human beings could ever hope to. Then, you respond instead by moving the goal posts and saying that the issue isn't farmland expansion and the environmental impacts of it. But instead, the issue is that we have the pressure of monitoring how much farmland we can afford to have. It just shows me that your concern was not for the environmental impact of particular diets from the get go. It was that you have a dislike of the Vegan diet and decided that you were going to reach for ANY argument that debunks it. But you accidentally didn't think it through and made a pro-Vegan argument by bringing up the issue of farmland expansion, which Veganism answers to. So, you had to move the goal posts, so that you could still continue to maintain your anti-Vegan stance while cloaking it in the veneer of concern for environmental issues. Am I right?

The majority of farmland is used to grow food to feed livestock. It's like 80% of farmland here in America... and similar numbers in other places. So, we would use less farmland if the entire world happened to go Vegan. Pigs and Cows eat a lot more than human beings do. So, in order for us to eat them, we need to feed them and raise them. So, the keeping of livestock is the number one cause of problems like soil erosion, pesticides, and eutrophication as well.

First off, a Vegan diet is almost always more environmentally friendly (with maybe the exception being if someone consumes tons of almonds or palm oil). And the reason why is because the animals we consume as food, consume a lot more than we do. And industrial farming practices cause a lot of pollution and contribute significantly to the impacts of global warming. So, my question to you is... 'Given the above facts, how are Vegan diets less environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets?' And if it's the case that you find that Vegan diets are actually MORE environmentally friendly on the whole compared to Omnivorous diets, then why aren't you decrying the poor environmental effects of Omnivorous diets? What is the reason for your inconsistency in concern for the environmental impact of particular diets? In your eyes, are the negative environmental effects caused by Omnivorous diets okay while the negative environmental effects caused by Vegan diets are not okay, even though Omnivorous diets cause more environmental problems? Now, I don't doubt that a very small minority of people must eat animal products to thrive. But we have to be careful when we try out a Vegan diet to not let our cravings make us make up a story that "Oh well. I tried. But I guess I'm just one of those people that need meat to survive." The mind can come up with all kids of rationalizations so that we can justify doing behaviors that we disagree with but still want to do. The mind is tricky like that. Also, can you link me to the studies that have shown tall people and people with big brains need to consume animal products? And what do you mean that b12 doesn't work for you? It takes like 2-5 years to burn through the b12 that's stored in your body. So, you can go a very long time without taking any b12 supplements. So, unless you've been Vegan for over 2 years and found that b12 doesn't work... I'm just not sure what you mean by this. And furthermore, there is no reason to temper your meat eating habits by saying that you eat a nearly Vegan diet... or by saying that you will switch to artificial meat if it comes out. It's of little consequence to me if you personally go Vegan or not. So, I'm not judging you. I ate an omnivorous diet for 26 years of my life. But I wonder if you're judging yourself and justifying it to me because you're judging you... and then projecting your judgments of you onto me.

Leo didn't say that the Democrats weren't self-interested. And I don't think he would say that. If he knows anything about American politics at all, he knows that most of these politicians are getting donations (essentially legal bribes) from huge corporations and industries... and even certain special interest groups in other countries like Israel. He just said they were more developed. And that's true on the Spiral Dynamics level of their moral leadership. And moral leadership, is basically about the way that they address the nation and present themselves and give speeches. What they encourage in the populace. So, on the level of moral leadership, Spiral Dynamics differences are evident. But at a certain point, level of development on the Spiral doesn't matter as much... the outcome matters. And Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all continued the offensive regime change wars and toppled so many foreign governments. And they support these wars because they were all getting donations to their Super PACs by lobbyists who work for the Military Industrial Complex. And both Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of their donors... as is anyone who gets bribes from people. There's an automatic conflict of interest when there are bribes as, of course, those billionaire donors want things from those politicians in exchange for their financial support. And you can go online and look up which politicians are taking money from which industries and corporations. It's public record. So, both are HIGHLY motivated to please these donors so that they can continue to get their financial kickbacks and support with financing any future campaigns. So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of.

I think it's a very strong possibility that another more competent version of Donald Trump will come along. The establishment benefits too much from being able to strong arm those who are wanting a more progressive politician or who want to vote third party into choosing between the "lesser of two evils" establishment canditate. So, now that they see that they can run "Neofascist corporatist vs Neoliberal corporatist" and get a ton of people falling in line, they may continue to do worse and worse intonations of that split. It might be a Tucker Carlson... but he wouldn't be the worst. It could really devolve into being some Richard Spencer kind of character.

You've just posted a lot of misinformation, so let me debunk all that first and then tell you why it's likely that Vegans trigger you. Number one, Veganism can be done more cheaply than the omnivorous diet because most naturally Vegan foods are less expensive than meat, dairy, and eggs. For example.. oats, rice, tofu, beans, bread, potatoes, etc. are all very inexpensive foods. Also, Vegans don't need to consume more volume. I eat about the same amount of food as a Vegan as I did when I was eating an omnivorous diet. It's easy to get the number of calories you need for the day on a Vegan diet... potatoes, tofu, beans, lentils, oats, wheat, rice, bananas, etc. are all pretty high calorie foods. And the macro and micro nutrients are also easy to get from Vegan sources. And Veganism is less harmful for the environment because (if everyone went Vegan) we'd use significantly less farmland because 80%+ of the crops currently growing are grown to feed livestock. And cows and pigs eat far more than a human being ever could. Also the methane gas from cows raised for dairy and meat contributes to global warming. So, in the unlikely case that all the world suddenly went Vegan, it would be one of the most beneficial things we could do for the environment. And Vegans don't binge on vitamin pills. The only supplement you NEED as a Vegan is b12. It's the only thing you can't get in a Vegan diet that is present in an omnivorous diet. I take a multi-vitamin and b12. That's it. Also, I've never taken a blood test as a Vegan. There is no need to unless you really want to. And I don't eat a bus load of vegetables... nor do most Vegans. Raw vegans often do eat a ton of food. But the majority of Vegans eat a normal amount as there are many filling Vegan foods. Now that all that is dispelled... There are certainly Vegans who are judgmental and pretentious. But aren't you being very judgmental towards Vegans? You seem to look down your nose at Vegans and thinking you're better than them... so that's a bit pretentious, isn't it? But really, I think what triggers people most about Vegans is that MOST people have Vegan values. It's just that few people live by them. And I think this is probably the source of your judgments about Vegans. Most people hate to see animals suffer, and so there is cognitive dissonance when we continue to eat products that contribute to the suffering of animals. We don't want to give up the foods we're used to. But we also don't want to become aware of the extreme suffering on the other end of those foods. So, when we see Vegans, they remind us of the suffering on the other end of our habits. And it becomes an uncomfortable experience that we'd rather just push away. And this produces projections onto Vegans as a whole group and a lot of effort to "debunk" the Vegan lifestyle by finding flaws in it that aren't there.

I'm definitely not blonde. I don't know what that has to do with my work though. But if it's an attraction thing, no worries. I'm sure the disinterest is mutual.

Thank you!

First off, the point still stands that Dems aren't reaching across the aisle because they're more developed. That's simply not true... even if they are more developed. They're reaching across the aisle because it's good for their donors... and their donors give them money. Period. This is very simple to understand. So, that point still stands, regardless of how developed they are. But to address what else you'd said... As I'd said, the window-dressing and moral leadership of Trump DID matter as he was a demagogue and he brought out the worst in people here domestically. This is true. And this REALLY matters. That's why I was relieved when Biden won as it does put out a fire. But I can also recognize how the natural outcome of the way the establishment protects corporate interests at the expense of the people and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, leaves the populace vulnerable to demagogues who can come in and speak to the pain of the peasantry and say, "I see you're struggling, it's (fill in marginalized group's) fault. Elect me and I'll do something about them." So in this way, the magicianship of politicians' moral leadership really matters. But on other levels, who cares as to who's more developed or not, when they're both killing the same amount of people? So, window dressing matters... but it isn't ALL that matters. You're neglecting the impacts of American Imperialism and how things are set up to benefit the very few at the expense of the vast majority. And many civilians in other countries have died in the American war machine just so the owners of the military industrial complex can continue to create more weapons for these forever wars and get access to the big pot of American tax dollars. Also, you can't get cheap foreign labor if the country you're trying to extract that labor from has a thriving middle class. So, the war machine is maintained for this reason too. And this is going to be the same whether it's Republicans or Democrats. While moral leadership is very important, you have to look beyond just the moral leadership role of politicians if you want to see the roots of corruption and actually fix things.

None of them have sinister motives. They have self-interested motives. They get money from the owners of corporations and industries to do the bidding of the owners of corporations and industries. I recommend reading some Noam Chomsky to get an idea of how American Imperialism works.

Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally playing for the same team. The differences are there, certainly. And I'd rather have Dems in office for that reason. But in the most fundamental ways, the "niceness" in their roles as moral leaders is window dressing. Of course, with Trump, we can see that that window dressing and (at least the illusion of) moral leadership matters. But it's still just window dressing. And the tolerance that Dems show is an illusion... because their constituents are nicer than the Republican's constituents. So, of course they have to seem nicer and more tolerant. But they're not nicer or more tolerant when they continue to support the Military Industrial Complex and American imperialism in so many foreign countries and support 2/3 of the world's dictators. And they're not nicer when they continue to support Big Pharma and the private insurance industry when all other developed nations have socialized medicine, and 30k+ people die every year due to lack of insurance or under-insurance. The real reason why they're always trying to "reach across the aisle" is because Republican legislation benefits their wealthy donors. So, it is Democrats' role to pretend to be for the average person, while being as adaptable and pliable as possible and to mostly concede to Republicans. Where it is Republicans job to get their agendas through by any means necessary... including obstruction. And it's all because this is what benefits their donors. Nothing more.