Emerald

That's what I was thinking.

I don't think it's a crime, but I do think it's exploitative. That is, unless the guy is wealthy enough and he's not emptying his bank account... and he is in a healthy enough place to have firm boundaries regarding his fetish. Like if a guy has an extra $1k to burn on this fetish and he indulges it once or twice a year... and he's able to otherwise pay bills. And it's just something he does for a thrill here and there in a way that doesn't involve psychological distress... then that's fine. But I'm imagining with this particular fetish that that doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can only imagine a guy wanting this dynamic because of deeper feelings of shame and that he's seeking a trigger for the shame. The issue is that I get the sense that this type of fetish can come from deeper-seated psychological distress as opposed to just a way someone gets their kicks.

You keep saying this. But you haven't answered anyone's questions on how you think this is possible? Does the wannabe-gay person jump on one leg and pat their head to permanently alter their hormones to turn themselves gay? Do they cast a spell on themselves? Do they just choose in their mind to be gay? What's the mechanism you assume wannabe-gay people use to choose to change their hormones?

It's not that the statement "not all men" is false. Women already know that it isn't all men. And with "me too", the reply of "not all men" was employed as a thought-stopping retort to derail and shut down the conversation because it made some men uncomfortable... but more importantly threatened powerful people like Harvey Weinstein. And the answer back of "Yes all women" was created to show that... even if not all men consciously engage in negative behavior towards women on the caliber of a Harvey Weinstein, all women are still affected by these patterns and most of us have had sexual crime encounters in some degree or another. And "yes all women" is largely reflective of a critique of the culture that shapes the way that people treat women. But when people (men and women both) are unconscious and "un-woke" that they will perpetuate these patterns that hurt women either deliberately or unconsciously. So, given these negative currents... there's a lot of hurt that women experience, often at the hands of men. And when women open up to share our experiences and try to make our voices heard and to raise awareness, it's a vulnerable thing to do because we're laying our traumas bare to make the world aware of them. This is ESPECIALLY true for women coming together to bring the sexual crimes of a powerful man to light. And it is a direct challenge to so many power structures just to do so. So, people get super offended and triggered by it... and there's a lot of blow-back and victim-blaming. Then, in private conversation, when the knee-jerk reaction is "not all men" and it derails the conversation to being about the man being offended by the conversation as opposed to being about the societal patterns that are creating traumas. It basically goes from a really open and vulnerable heart to heart discussion... to one that would just devolve into a fruitless pointless argument. And at that point, you realize that the man you're trying to communicate to isn't mature enough to hold space for your lived experiences and has to make the conversation about himself and how upset he is about what he assumes the woman thinks about him. So as a woman, to preserve your own vulnerability and energy, you save the conversation for men and women who are more mature and less easily offended by your vulnerabilities and traumas.

In the context of your non-evidence-based theories regarding same sex attraction, how do you suppose one actively decides to change the hormones in their body to 'choose' to be attracted to the same sex? What do you assume the mechanism to be behind changing the hormones? How do you assume that I changed the hormones in my body to be attracted to both men and women? What actions do you believe that I took to develop that attraction? Though I know you're incorrect, I'm asking in earnest because I genuinely want to understand your assumptions about how human sexuality works to come to this conclusion. Also, since this isn't a viewpoint shared by most people who don't like gay people, I'll be straightforward with you about what this makes me think of. Though I'm aware that this may be interpreted as a "gay person trying to turn you gay". But this anti-LGBT rationale and the intensity of the fixation/paranoia about LGBT people forcing you to "participate", genuinely makes me suspicious that you might be a closeted gay person who's ashamed and in denial of being gay. It's somewhat common that, when someone is gay but is raised in context where being gay is taboo, the gay person might feel more comfortable thinking of same sex attraction as a conscious choice that they (and others) can decide upon at will. And this person can often see the LGBT community as tempters trying to get them to stray from the path, as it is easier to scapegoat LGBT people and blame them for the gay feelings. So, as long as they keep fighting the good fight of 'choosing to be straight', and don't choose to give into the same sex attractions... that they're straight and therefore 'normal' and acceptable in the eyes of their friends, family, and community. Another common rationale with repressed gay people is the thought process that same-sex attraction is something that everyone struggles with. And that, if it's normalized or accepted, there would be nothing stopping themselves or anyone else from giving into the same sex urges. But of course, the reality is that most people are straight and don't have same sex attractions. It's not something that most people "struggle" with. Like 10-20% of people have some degree of same sex attraction and the other 80-90% of people don't. And it's just comforting for the gay person in denial to think of same-sex attraction as a normal and ubiquitous 'sin' that everyone struggle with but must fight off. This is what your behavior on this post makes me think.

Boo! That's no fun. Start another debate thread about me. Anyway, back to Trump and the election... I guess.

Yes, it isn't like dishonesty suddenly becomes honesty when someone shifts from blue to orange... or from green to yellow. That lies are happening is true on all levels of the spiral.

What do you mean? Me and several others were having a conversation about Elon Musk and Donald Trump biases and dishonesty... and he got onto us about it. All of my replies came after that.

Teach me your ways, oh exasperated wise one. As your humble student, I apologize for my recalcitrance.

That's my issue with it too. I'd be fine if he were actually taking specific swings at what I'm saying, as I like to be challenged and to spar it out. It's just unearned when there's nothing there but vague grandstanding and claims that his view is higher consciousness and that I'm the closed minded lower consciousness one. There's nothing there to learn or work with.

Like overlooking basic truths and realities because of having your paradigm wrapped up too much in the intellectual model of Spiral Dynamics. For example, if you point out objective instances of things like racism, for example. And the person who is wrapped up in the Spiral Dynamics model sees that only as stage green delusion and blots that reality out of their awareness because it doesn't fit with their understanding of the model. Or if a Stage Blue person points out the importance of traditions as a method of group cohesion. And the Spiral Dynamics model bypasser views that only as Stage Blue delusion because of their understanding of the model. It's basically where the model overtakes your ability to see things for what they are.

Definitely true.

He's the same as I remember him. If he's supposedly trying to help me, he needs to be specific and be more intellectually honest in his tactics... without grandstanding and throwing out all sorts of judgments and assumptions about me and my paradigm. But it's pretty condescending in the first place for him to assume he needs to teach me how to be 'higher consciousness like him' because I rightly pointed out instances of Elon Musk's dishonesty on a thread comparing and contrasting Musk with Trump. He's basically saying, "Get on my level... ya' dum dum." And he's counting that as a mic drop moment.

That was what the previous conversation was about. And you burst into it saying we were in an Elon trash-talking circle jerk or something. So, it was you that side-tracked the original discussion with things that are off-topic. And mentioning his instances of dishonesty was on topic for the original response The fact of the matter is that I was just stating facts about Elon Musk in that context... facts that you just now conceded that you agree with. And you keep grandstanding with all these assumptions about my perspective because I (rightly) pointed out instances of Musk's dishonesty. The fact of the matter is that don't know what my perspective on reality is. You just didn't like that I said something true and negative about Elon and you're projecting your ideas about stage green unconsciousness onto me.

First off, no he didn't because he said nothing specific. And he's treating it like a slam dunk. And secondly, yes he is interested in debates and winning. That's why he argues so much. And it's clear that one of his things is being the one who's right and who knows better. And as a fellow lover of arguments, debates, and winning... game recognizes game. But I don't like this below the belt sparring. I like to keep it honest. And I will call out a dishonest debate tactic every time because it is one of my biggest pet peeves. Like playing chess with someone... and they flip the board over when they're about to lose. And then they claim that they win anyway and that playing chess is low consciousness behavior and that we were actually playing hopscotch. And his statement that he's not interested in debates and winning is just another tactic to try to flip the board and move the goal posts and wiggle out of losing the debate.

I wasn't talking about his politics. I was talking about him lying.

It's more of the ability to shift perspectives from absolute to relative. Consider a video game... and the perspective of the game designer versus the perspective of the person playing the game. If you're designing a video game... you want there to be obstacles for the playable characters to face. Otherwise, the game isn't interesting and it's too easy. So, in that sense, the duality of good and bad is necessary for interesting game play. So... both "good guys" and "bad guys" are necessary to play a good game. And the goodness of the game transcends the goodness of the good guys and the badness of the bad guys and included both. But if you are playing the game... you want to defeat the bad guys and for good to win and justice to prevail. The same is true also from the perspective of the author versus the perspective of the reader. Stage Green (like all other previous phases) tends to focus on the good guys and bad guys in the game as an absolute. And they want to ban or eliminate the "bad" guys in the way their stage on the Spiral defines it. They get wrapped up in the perspective of the reader without thinking about why the author wrote the book that way in the first place. But Stage Yellow and Turquoise is thinking like a video game designer in the sense that they recognize moral grayness and imperfections are an important part of the game play. So, Leo is correct in saying that my stated perspective is stage green regarding Elon Musk because I am focused on his level of honesty. But that's because I'm deciding to play the game as I am looking from the perspective of the human player and not the creator... as I see that as far wiser than sitting the game out and being "above it". From the perspective as the creator... Elon Musk is an important part of the game play. And while his actions are neither good nor bad in the absolute, his contributions to the system of reality create a ripple effect that is part and parcel to the gameplay. From the perspective of the player however... he's a character in the gameplay that you can't always trust to be honest but can provide you with some resources. And I have to admit, as the player, he's not my favorite character in the game.

You "merely suggested" did you?

There's nothing particularly stage green about what I said because I'm just stating facts about what Elon Musk has done, and I'm sure that Leo knows that by now. He also seems to think that those in Yellow or Turquoise would ignore ethics as a heuristic of discernment. But in actuality, it just shifts the perspective to one that is more compassionate where you can orient to the symptom-level behavior through the lens of ethics and justice... but view the root-level origins of the behavior through the morally neutral lens of compassion, unconditional love, and deep accurate understanding. He just had the knee-jerk reaction and stepped into the "you're stage green" argument two feet first... and has to pretend it's the case now to avoid losing the argument.

First off, that's not what the debate was about. You moved the goal posts to your supposed "meta issue" without even mentioning what the meta issue is. At this current time, I don't even know what you personally think about Elon Musk. What is the meta-issue that you're pointing out? You haven't even given me what your position is and you refuse. How am I even supposed to take you seriously right now? You just called me stage green and told me to watch interviews. And yet, you're pretending to be the teacher and the intellectual powerhouse in this that can grandstand on empty ad-hominem arguments and tell me that my perspective is insufficient... somehow. Don't play teacher with me. Regarding this thread, your sense of intellectual superiority over myself and others is unearned.

If you are unable to rebut my points, then just be honest and concede. I haven't said anything particularly stage green in my messages on this thread. I was merely pointing out concrete instances of Elon Musk's dishonesty because that is the topic we're ACTUALLY debating about. But you know that you agree with me on the topic we're actually debating... and you don't want to lose the debate because you already made a big show of grand standing about Spiral Dynamics. So you keep moving the goal posts from the debate about Elon Musk's level of honesty... to what my level of Spiral Dynamics is and how I don't recognize Elon Musk's contributions because I'm stage green. But that is NOT what you and I were debating about in the first place. That's just you interjecting your opinion on Musk into the debate and moving the debate to a topic where you feel like you have a fighting chance of winning. We were debating "Is Elon Musk honest?" but you keep moving the goal post to the topic "Is Elon Musk good/admirable?" Stay on the topic, be intellectually honest, and concede that you agree with me about that debate topic at hand... instead of pretending my argument is something that it isn't. I conceded to you that con-artist isn't an apt term for him. But he does have dishonest tendencies as is evidenced. Do you disagree with the specific points that I listed in my previous posts that those are instances of dishonesty? Would you characterize Elon Musk as an honest person?

First off... that's no excuse for you to not support your claims. It's a cop out and intellectually dishonest, and I know you know better. Your argument is an authority-appeal fallacy... and you're naming yourself baselessly as the authority you're appealing to because you've watched interviews with him. Secondly, I can tell you that the things I said about Musk are true about him being inconsistent with his values... purporting to value free speech as the reason he acquired Twitter and then actively censoring voices he dislikes while bolstering voices he agrees with. And that he was also dishonest in sharing details about is trans-daughter's childhood to build a narrative that appeals to the anti-trans people he's trying to impress. Those are things that I know for sure are true. So, watching 10, 100, or 1000 hours of interviews of Elon Musk isn't going to make me see these acts of dishonesty as honesty. Also, my understanding is also that he's not the direct inventor of the innovations he's credited for. Most of his patents that his name is on are around the shape or design of the inventions. And he has people work under him to create the innovations. Or like with Tesla, he acquired the company from the actual creators of the Tesla and put it out to mass market. And I've seen this from multiple sources over the years. Though I welcome a rebuttal if you have contradictory evidence. And of course, if I watch 10 hours of Elon Musk interviews... he's probably NEVER going to mention that he's not the direct inventor because that would hurt his image and his brand. So I'm relying on you, Leo, to provide me with evidence that my perspective is as uninformed as you believe it to be.

That's not a substantive counter-argument. And it's intellectually dishonest for you to even suggest that it is. If you can't rebut my claims, I'm not going to take what you say too seriously because you can't even articulate why you think I'm wrong.

Part of the issue is that people tend to see politics only as social values, as those are the things the average person feels tuned into on an emotional level. And it can't be removed from consideration of course because human rights are wrapped up in it. But when people only have that association, it creates a situations where people end up voting against their own economic interests to 'keep the kids from being transed.'