Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Danioover9000]

@Inliytened1 I'm responding to your post:

34 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Good question.   But can you quantify it either way?

 

By showing it can be quantified here:

 

32 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Inliytened1

   Yes I can.

 

 

 

So how is this post countering my post when you are asking me to give you a quantifiable way to determine a conservative mind versus a liberal mind in a scientific and quantifiable way?

20 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There's still going to be a grey area.  There could still be a racist liberal- or a liberal that holds bigotry or bias towards their own race.  So this throws it all out the window.  What you are going by when you say Hitler is a conservative is an estimated guess.    I don't think Leo dismissed this - so let's be clear.  That's just his perspective.   I just think we should look at the individual and not his political view.   That's fhe point of my contribution. 

 

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

To add some spice to the discussion: I would place Hitler within the SD Green stage.

The way he deconstructs all the prevalent grand narratives of his time and blurs the lines between description and normativity in the aforementioned speech is classic postmodernist rhetoric and foreshadows the more rigorous academic formulations of this intellectual sensibility.

Hitler was neither SD Green in content OR structure. Just because you can deconstruct narratives and blur lines does not make you Green. This is an absurd distortion of the model.

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

No. Deception only gets you so far. 

If you want to go with a "anything is possible" technicality, fine. But it's rather meaningless then. It should be obvious we are talking about likely outcomes, not what fantasy might be theoretically possible.

   Not only is it meaningless it's useless within argumentation as that's a generalization and semantics fallacy, plus a moot and bailey fallacy by making a specific claim first about liberals likely being bigots it's possible, but then him saying 'anything is possible' and not mentioning that also conservatives can possibly be bigots too and even bringing in the ratio or probability that one side could be higher in bigotry than the other can also be a slippery slope fallacy, it's also a fallacy of omission.

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Hitler was neither SD Green in content OR structure. Just because you can deconstruct narratives and blur lines does not make you Green. This is an absurd distortion of the model.

   That's also true because Hitler and the Nazi party were intentionally proclaiming they're social nationalists rather than ultra nationalist alt right because they don't want to honestly say they're anti democratic, anti socialist, anti progressive, anti liberal, anti education, and are racists. This is technically misinformation and propaganda by false branding or false advertising.

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, aurum said:

Hitler was neither SD Green in content OR structure. Just because you can deconstruct narratives and blur lines does not make you Green. This is an absurd distortion of the model.

Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

   Spiral Dynamics stage green: Hippies, new agers, SJWs, political activists, socialists, progressives, liberals, animal welfare, PETA, environmental activists, love, compassion, kindness, empathy, empaths...hot witch girlfriends.

   More examples:

   So, considering all that, is Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party at stage green values, given the holocaust, the concentration camps, SS Gestappo secret police, breeding programs, sterilization of Jews, and burning libraries and silencing opposition?

Edited March 28 by Danioover9000

[Inliytened1]

36 minutes ago, aurum said:

No. Deception only gets you so far. 

If you want to go with a "anything is possible" technicality, fine. But it's rather meaningless then. It should be obvious we are talking about likely outcomes, not what fantasy might be theoretically possible.

Likely outcomes are fantasy as well.  Just be aware of that. 

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

Not Nazi propaganda.

Do not confuse SD Green post-modernism / deconstruction. If Hitler was truly post-modern in his approach, he would have had to deconstruct and relativize his entire Nazi ideology, which of course is the exact opposite of what he did. His ideological structure was Absolutist / Blue, mixed with devilry.

Edited March 29 by aurum

[Inliytened1]

34 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@aurum

   Not only is it meaningless it's useless within argumentation as that's a generalization and semantics fallacy, 

That's no different than the so called quantifications you provided.   In your own video it clearly stated that it was percentage based.  So nothing is Absolute here- that's the take away .  So if you want to say that it's meaningless apply that same logic to your own stance. 

Edited March 28 by Inliytened1

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Likely outcomes are fantasy as well.  Just be aware of that. 

That sounds like a spiritual technicality to me. And also not relevant to our discussion. 

[Danioover9000]

@Inliytened1

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's no different than the so called quantifications you provided.   In your own video it clearly stayed that it was percentage based.  So nothing is Absolute here- that's the take away .  So if you want to say that it's meaningless apply that same logic to your own stance. 

   Within argumentation, and BTW you asked for a quantity science based answer, and I gave you one, then you jumped ship to introduce bigotry and racism which my other answer didn't cover, AKA whataboutism and red herring. You're the one with the performative contradiction here when arguing. Also I didn't commit the false dilemma fallacy here by claiming the sources are absolute and that you are either conservative brain or liberal brain, I have listed other political ideologies in a spectrum haven't I? So it's a bit of bad faith to imply I'm making a false dichotomy here when you're the one making the red herring and slippery slope fallacy.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

That sounds like a spiritual technicality to me. And also not relevant to our discussion. 

Well that's the problem.  Spirituality isn't a technicality- it's deeply entangled with reality.   You just want to refer to logic but you exclude mysticism.    It's not a technicality it is reality.  So you cannot forsake spirituality or you are missing a deep aspect of reality and your view will always be skewed by the lack of it.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Inliytened1

   Within argumentation, and BTW you asked for a quantity science based answer, and I gave you one, then you jumped ship to introduce bigotry and racism which my other answer didn't cover, AKA whataboutism and red herring. You're the one with the performative contradiction here when arguing. Also I didn't commit the false dilemma fallacy here by claiming the sources are absolute and that you are either conservative brain or liberal brain, I have listed other political ideologies in a spectrum haven't I? So it's a bit of bad faith to imply I'm making a false dichotomy here when you're the one making the red herring and slippery slope fallacy.

Lol.  I didnt jump ship at all.  That wasn't quanitifcation because to quantify this is impossible. I didnt go to bigotry I stated that you can't know what's in the minds of any individual - be they liberal or conservative.   It goes way deeper than a label. 

[Nilsi]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   Spiral Dynamics stage green: Hippies, new agers, SJWs, political activists, socialists, progressives, liberals, animal welfare, PETA, environmental activists, love, compassion, kindness, empathy, empaths...hot witch girlfriends.

   More examples:

 

7 minutes ago, aurum said:

Not Nazi propaganda.

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

This ubiquitous superficial reading of Spiral Dynamics is precisely why virtually no serious intellectual takes that model seriously. It's a shame, because there aren't many convincing arguments for a post-postmodern sensibility, but Spiral Dynamics at its best certainly is one

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

The structure of SD Green is Relativism. That is the core feature that defines it at the highest level. All the content can be derived from that. 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well that's the problem.  Spirituality isn't a technicality- it's deeply entangled with reality.   You just want to refer to logic but you exclude mysticism.    It's not a technicality it is reality.  So you cannot forsake spirituality or you are missing a deep aspect of reality and your view will always be skewed by the lack of it.

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.   So...but then again by the same token I can't say he was Absolutely evil or insane.  He did what he did for the benefit of himself and his people- but mostly himself.  

[Danioover9000]

   This is a nice example of a person who's far right yet is reasonable, and different from MAGA alt right or even Nazis in Nazi Germany:

   Also the same guy who did the video that GB was anti slavery actually.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

38 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I was asking for structure, not for content. Is it really that hard?

This ubiquitous superficial reading of Spiral Dynamics is precisely why virtually no serious intellectual takes that model seriously. It's a shame, because there aren't many convincing arguments for a post-postmodern sensibility, but Spiral Dynamics at its best certainly is one

   No, you were asking @aurum to give you characteristics of stage green, which I did and provided, also a mega thread of people who exhibit stage green values and their characteristics. So if you wanted structure and not content, why is it really hard for you to not ask that instead of 'characteristics' then? Unless you can define to us what 'characteristic' means and how characteristics is the same as 'structure'?

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Characterize the structure of SD Green for me then, if you don't mind.

 

[Danioover9000]

@aurum @Inliytened1

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don't need to include mysticism in every conversation. Doing so in this context adds nothing.

   Actually he can, let him as it also weakens his arguments and makes possible another argument point of attack: How Nazis bastardized the kabbalah and qlippoth, and use non-duality and spiritualty to justify atrocities. In fact one SS soldier described and absolved himself of murdering a Jew as not 'him' killing the Jew, but his 'knife' moving through space doing the killing. How depraved can you get with twisting the semantics and obfuscating moral and immorality via non-duality and spiritual language? Even as far back as the Aztec empire doing their seasonal human sacrifice rituals, ripping their hearts out while they're still alive! Apparently a stage purple/red value empire but also with non-duality teachings! How is that not a great example of devilry corrupting spirituality?

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I get that.  But the point is you can't concretely say Hitler was a conservative - because of relativity.   So...but then again by the same token I can't say he was Absolutely evil or insane.  He did what he did for the benefit of himself and his people- but mostly himself.  

 

Edited March 28 by Danioover9000