Leo, What do you think of Justin Trudeau?

[joeyi99]

We are always discussing Trump here, so I thought I'd open the discussion on your neighbors' leader...

He  is currently facing this cheap attack from his opponents:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5922861/justin-trudeau-brownface-video/

[Leo Gura]

I don't know much about him. He seems a bit like Canada's Bill Clinton.

His brown-face scandal I think is pretty silly. I don't think he's a racist. People just behave in crass ways sometimes when they are young.

When it comes to fighting racism the important thing is to look at the politician's systemic policies and not get distracted by superficial scandals.

For example, Trump's policies are racist. I don't see that with Trudeau. That's the important difference.

Judge Trudeau by his policies. Honestly I don't know much about his policies. He seems neo-liberal moderate and somewhat corporatist. Stage Orange/Green. Similar to Macron of France.

[Raphael]

@Leo Gura What do you think of Macron?

[outlandish]

On 9/19/2019 at 8:47 PM, Leo Gura said:

Judge Trudeau by his policies. Honestly I don't know much about his policies. He seems neo-liberal moderate and somewhat corporatist. Stage Orange/Green. Similar to Macron of France.

I'd agree with this assessment.

JT isn't a racist. He's handled this scandal really well and has given several sincere public apologies for his actions (from almost 20 years ago), and openly acknowledged that although he didn't intend it that way, that his actions were indeed racist. He didn't try to defend his actions, and has shown that he has moved beyond them. His policies are very much pro-immigration, and he built a cabinet with the highest racial and sexual diversity in Canadian history.

I've got 99 problems with JT, but this ain't one. Ironically, I think this scandal is going to work out in his favour because he handled it so well.

[Emerald]

On 9/19/2019 at 11:47 PM, Leo Gura said:

I don't know much about him. He seems a bit like Canada's Bill Clinton.

His brown-face scandal I think is pretty silly. I don't think he's a racist. People just behave in crass ways sometimes when they are young.

When it comes to fighting racism the important thing is to look at the politician's systemic policies and not get distracted by superficial scandals.

For example, Trump's policies are racist. I don't see that with Trudeau. That's the important difference.

Judge Trudeau by his policies. Honestly I don't know much about his policies. He seems neo-liberal moderate and somewhat corporatist. Stage Orange/Green. Similar to Macron of France.

I don't know. He did it like 3 times. And one time in particular, he really looked like he was getting ready to perform in a minstrel show.

So, it makes me think it wasn't just a case of stupid white people syndrome, like an "Oops! Derp! I tried to go to Halloween as Little Wayne. I didn't know the historical context and did a racism." 

With the repeated use of black/brown face, it does betray a kind of mocking nature to the portrayals. 

And his policy does reflect a kind of callousness to people of color.

For example, there is a problem with Mercury poisoning in the water at Grassy Narrows, Ontario which has a large Indigenous population and has been for a long time. And Trudeau promised to take action to fix it. But when a Native Canadian brought it up and talked about how his family and community was dealing with the mercury poisoning at a high dollar fundraiser that Trudeau was holding, Trudeau responded by dismissing him and derisively/sarcastically thanking him for the donation while everyone in the room laughed at the joke.

So, I personally do think that he has some issues with being dismissive of issues that marginalized groups face. 

Now, I'm sure he's not "Join the KKK" racist. But being unwittingly racist and failing to recognize the human struggles uniquely experienced by different groups still has profound effects given his position of power.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, I personally do think that he has some issues with being dismissive of issues that marginalized groups face

Seems like par for the course. Most politicians don't care about the most marginalized groups.

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Seems like par for the course. Most politicians don't care about the most marginalized groups.

That's true of most politicians for sure.

But I think it unwise to shrug my shoulders and give them a pass on it and act as though it's not a big deal or that it has no effect. It truly is a big deal and does have a big effect. An effect, that white people like you and I, can only grasp from the outside... making us highly likely to underestimate the impact.

Trudeau's behavior is the exact type of behavior that needs to be taken seriously, as it does impact people's lives in a profound way that he likely doesn't grasp in any meaningful way.

And whether his transgression stems from harmful intent or pure ignorance, my answer is the same...

Throw 'em to the dogs is what I say.  Make an example of him and let the pitchforked internet mob string him up, put him in the stocks, and let them throw rotten fruit at him. Let the brutal wisdom of the hive mind have its effect. And give the hive mind a thumbs up as it happens.

Don't attempt to douse the collective rage of the masses with buckets of water that say, "meh... it's normal." It may be NORMATIVE but it's not normal if we define normal in relation to societal health and well-being. Get angry as though his actions are directly impacting you in a negative way... as they truly are. 

Participating in holding his feet to the fire, will encourage him and other powerful people (and average people) to care a little bit more about marginalized groups. 

Given that we all have the opportunity to weigh in, I see it unwise to just shrug your shoulders like it's no biggie, when you can call someone out on their bullshit and actually hold them accountable and participate in the establishment and solidification better and more evolved social taboos. Get a few million people doing the same and he'll be shaking in his boots. Make both willful and unconscious racists more uncomfortable with expressing their racism and not less.

After that kind of response from the masses, he'll be focused on marginalized group like his life depends upon it... because he will recognize that (effectively) it does.

He's also nominally on the left, so he should be held even more accountable for his racism that we on the left hold right wingers. Gotta keep the garden weeded for it to grow right. That way better options can brandish themselves in the next Canadian election.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

Throw 'em to the dogs is what I say.  Make an example of him and let the pitchforked internet mob string him up, put him in the stocks, and let them throw rotten fruit at him. Let the brutal wisdom of the hive mind have its effect. And give the hive mind a thumbs up as it happens.

This is where it gets very problematic. The hive mind can be very ignorant and evil, and also easily manipulated by power hungry devils.

We have to be careful not to ruin people's careers over minor gaffs and bits of foolishness.

If he was a proper racist I would agree, kick him out of office. But I don't think that is the right reaction in this case.

It is important that we allow room for public servants and celebrities to grow and mature. I like when a public figure is able to admit his past mistakes and grow from them. This is necessary in a society where people are self-actualizing. Otherwise no one will admit their mistakes because they will be too scared to get rejected or mauled by the hive mind.

I think pubic figures should only be fired if they did something significantly bad and they refuse to accept responsiblity and grow from it.

We don't want a society where we tar and feather people for minor offenses.

For example, Trump deserves to be kicked out of office because he is unapologetic about anything he does and he refuses to correct his ways. I don't think Trudeau is in the same ballpark. I think this brown face scandal will make him a better person overall. He seems to regret his actions. These kind of scandals are actually helpful for the evolution of our culture as a consensus develops that blackface is hurtful and racist. Believe it or not, many people don't know that yet. People who did not grow up in the South aren't that familiar with blackface. For example, I never even heard that term until a few years ago.

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is where it gets very problematic. The hive mind can be very ignorant and evil, and also easily manipulated by power hungry devils.

We have to be careful not to ruin people's careers over minor gaffs and bits of foolishness.

If he was a proper racist I would agree, kick him out of office. But I don't think that is the right reaction in this case.

It is important that we allow room for public servants and celebrities to grow and mature. I like when a public figure is able to admit his past mistakes and grow from them. This is necessary in a society where people are self-actualizing. Otherwise no one will admit their mistakes because they will be too scared to get rejected or mauled by the hive mind.

I think pubic figures should only be fired if they did something significantly bad and they refuse to accept responsiblity and grow from it.

We don't want a society where we tar and feather people for minor offenses.

For example, Trump deserves to be kicked out of office because he is unapologetic about anything he does and he refuses to correct his ways. I don't think Trudeau is in the same ballpark. I think this brown face scandal will make him a better person overall. He seems to regret his actions. These kind of scandals are actually helpful for the evolution of our culture as a consensus develops that blackface is hurtful and racist. Believe it or not, many people don't know that yet. People who did not grow up in the South aren't that familiar with blackface. For example, I never even heard that term until a few years ago.

I personally see it as a redrawing of taboos and the necessary part that the hive mind plays in solidifying those taboos. It's basically a force of nature that will be there whether we like it or not.

If a society really holds a value dear, and it's transgressed, there will be people to enforce that value and its boundaries.

So, as unconscious as mobs can be, they will always exist. So, it really matters what those mobs are for and against.

For example,

Before, the outrage mob was focused in on past taboos like being a gay person. And that was collectively decided on as unacceptable and bad. So, gay people had to go into hiding to avoid the mobbing effect.

Now, there are growing outrage mobs focused on gay rights. And so, if a person is homophobic, the gay rights outrage mob will go after them.

This is how society naturally polices those who don't transcend their ignorance... and most won't. 

So, whether it stems from unconsciousness or not, there is a kind of wisdom in it that is wise to respect. Taboo exists for a reason, and for optimum effect, it's good to let the agitated masses have their impact. 

 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Taboo exists for a reason, and for optimum effect, it's good to let the agitated masses have their impact. 

Careful what you wish for. One day you may find yourself on the receiving end of that mob. Especailly since you're a public figure.

We are talking now about the unhealthy aspects of stage Green.

Also consider, is sicking a mob on your enemies a loving move?

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Careful what you wish for. One day you may find yourself on the receiving end of that mob. Especailly since you're a public figure.

We are talking now about the unhealthy aspects of stage Green.

Also consider, is sicking a mob on your enemies a loving move?

I do fully understand that I can end up on the other side of the mob. And if that happens due to some ignorance or harmful behavior on my part, then that's a good thing. Throw me to the dogs too. It will make others question whether or not they want to do the same ignorant/harmful behavior that I did.

But yes... I am saying that it is a loving move. It's just a very ugly loving move. Not on the part of the individuals involved, but on the collective phenomena itself as an inextricable part of human society. 

Imagine how terrible things would be in human society if we didn't have social scorn to discourage them. I wouldn't want to live in such a barbaric place. Would you?

So, understand that it's a loving move that human nature itself takes to vet what behaviors will and won't be accepted. And it has its place.

But honestly, regardless of how loving it is or not, it is simply just part of human nature. It's not going anywhere. So, it's best to make peace with the phenomena and notice the function it does and has always played in human society... and always will.

The best we can hope for is that the force of the outrage mob is working toward the taboo-ification of things that harm society and not neutral or positive things that help society.

So, the outrage mob is unwise to demonize and push it to the collective shadows, as it simply exists and always will in some form or another.

Once we accept that it exists and make peace with it, we can see its social function and have a better chance at consciously leveraging it to demolish regressive social taboos and implement social taboos that work toward creating a healthier and more conscious society.

 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Imagine how terrible things would be in human society if we didn't have social scorn to discourage them. I wouldn't want to live in such a barbaric place. Would you?

Love is more powerful than mob revenge.

What you are describing (mob rule) is barbarism. That will not end well.

Don't forget the power of forgiveness.

"Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."

[mandyjw]

If social scorn worked then Donald Trump would never have been elected President after the Access Hollywood tapes came out.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is more powerful than mob revenge.

What you are describing (mob rule) is barbarism. That will not end well.

Don't forget the power of forgiveness.

"Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."

All is love. Love cannot be more powerful than love.

But on the more relative nature, that you're speaking from, compassion can come in ways that are counter-intuitive. And though those that participate in outrage mobs may seem cruel, there is often kindness in that cruelty.

So, regardless of whether or not mob rule is barbarism or not... it simply is part of human nature. And that's not going to change. You can argue against human nature all you want. But there it will still remain.

So, you can either choose to resist it and have it take on a more shadowy veneer or accept it as an inextricable aspect of human nature and leverage it more consciously.

And truly, what do you think a large scale protest is but a more conscious form of mob rule? 

That's why we can't discount the importance (and yes loving nature) of these collective dynamics... ugly though they may be at times.

That said, we don't need to be involved in the mob. We just need to see the function of them, and stop fighting against them while they're redrawing the taboos to the advantage of all people and not just some.

In lieu of waking up, there is nothing that changes individual behavior like pressure from the collective does. It's like wide-scale peer pressure, and it has its place.

 

[mandyjw]

@Emerald Have you heard Brene Brown's views on shame and racism? I think that's what is at stake here. So many people even comfortable TALKING about racism because of the risk that they will be so severely shamed for our mistakes, so they remain ignorant. Using shame as a tool fuels fear and fear is essentially what racism is at its root. In the end racism persists. If you give people a little breathing room, and they take down their defenses, then the true collective shadow work can take place. 

 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

If social scorn worked then Donald Trump would never have been elected President after the Access Hollywood tapes came out.

Donald Trump, if nothing else, is quite good at influencing the mass mob and consciously leveraging social scorn away from himself and toward anyone who opposes him.

And he has had a major effect in redrawing social taboos that enable more free expression of racist, sexist, and xenophobic behavior.

So, he's using the very tool that I'm talking about... But he's using it for things that are harmful to human society.

What must be grasped is that humanity is always at war with itself in deciding what is and isn't acceptable. It's always changing.

So, if you deem the power to leverage social taboos and social scorn in the favor as inherently wrong/bad... then only the wrong/bad get to use that tool.

And the tool is quite neutral as a phenomena. It can be used either way. Let's not poo poo it when it's used to solidify social taboos that help marginalized groups.

 

 

 

[Emerald]

31 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

@Emerald Have you heard Brene Brown's views on shame and racism? I think that's what is at stake here. So many people even comfortable TALKING about racism because of the risk that they will be so severely shamed for our mistakes, so they remain ignorant. Using shame as a tool fuels fear and fear is essentially what racism is at its root. In the end racism persists. If you give people a little breathing room, and they take down their defenses, then the true collective shadow work can take place. 

 

Obviously, it's better to open dialogue up. It's more helpful to help people transcend their ignorance. Get the ones that you can get... but it won't be everyone. In fact, it won't be most people. Transcending ignorance is a steep task that takes a lot of deep digging.

That's where the outrage mob comes in to solidify social taboos against those who can't or won't transcend their ignorance. Social taboo has its place in this way... even if it's less optimal than the fantasy of having an entire society transcend their ignorance all at once.

What must be understood is that outrage mobs are just part of human nature. And regardless of how problematic they can be, they're not going anywhere. Shame will always be a tool that the collective leverages in some direction or another. 

So, since there is not way to get rid of shaming and outrage from the human collective, the best we can do is encourage it to take on forms that actually benefit society.

We can either choose to have an outrage mob that's anti-gay or an outrage mob that's anti-homophobe. But we can't choose to have no outrage mob. There is no intonation of human society that has existed without it.

All I'm saying is to accept that and see it as a neutral phenomena that can be of great benefit or harm to humanity depending on which behaviors are on the chopping block. 

So, the first tool in humanity's belt is to help raise consciousness. The second is mass pressure. Both work incredibly well, though the latter has its problems.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Emerald

[Aspiraling Wizard]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

Obviously, it's better to open dialogue up. It's more helpful to help people transcend their ignorance. Get the ones that you can get... but it won't be everyone. In fact, it won't be most people. Transcending ignorance is a steep task that takes a lot of deep digging.

That's where the outrage mob comes in to solidify social taboos against those who can't or won't transcend their ignorance. Social taboo has its place in this way... even if it's less optimal than the fantasy of having an entire society transcend their ignorance all at once.

What must be understood is that outrage mobs are just part of human nature. And regardless of how problematic they can be, they're not going anywhere. Shame will always be a tool that the collective leverages in some direction or another. 

So, since there is not way to get rid of shaming and outrage from the human collective, the best we can do is encourage it to take on forms that actually benefit society.

We can either choose to have an outrage mob that's anti-gay or an outrage mob that's anti-homophobe. But we can't choose to have no outrage mob. There is no intonation of human society that has existed without it.

All I'm saying is to accept that and see it as a neutral phenomena that can be of great benefit or harm to humanity depending on which behaviors are on the chopping block. 

So, the first tool in humanity's belt is to help raise consciousness. The second is mass pressure. Both work incredibly well, though the latter has its problems.

 

 

 

 

You're not conscious enough to be conscious of and understand the things that Leo is symbolizing with words/language. Your argument is coming at least primarily from stage green with good intentions but every road to hell seems to be paved with them. I personally STILL struggle with relinquishing this Lord of the Flies/Che Gueverra/Watch Dogs mentality and fantasy that if enough people banded together and put people like Trump's head on a pike that every problem a person like that creates will be solved. Removing Trump from office with violence will make him into a martyr. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." And this isn't Obi Wan Kenobi we're talking about here. Actions of this nature are only for truly intractable dictators. The only way I personally see that Trump could maintain a truly Hitler like grip on America is if he stayed President past two terms. Even with as much collective growing as America has to do, we are almost certainly too developed to let something like this stand. Careful with the righteous collectivist stuff. It's the perfect smokescreen for the ego at both and individual and collective level. Social psychologists have done many studies on mob mentality, people in that kind of trance are for all intents and purposes behaving as though their intelligence/consciousness/critical thinking is cut down by half. I follow your stuff on youtube, Emerald. This type of thinking is ultimately beneath you and well within your ability to transcend given enough time and work if the level of quality of your videos on youtube is any indication.  

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Aspiraling Wizard said:

You're not conscious enough to be conscious of and understand the things that Leo is symbolizing with words/language. Your argument is coming at least primarily from stage green with good intentions but every road to hell seems to be paved with them. I personally STILL struggle with relinquishing this Lord of the Flies/Che Gueverra/Watch Dogs mentality and fantasy that if enough people banded together and put people like Trump's head on a pike that every problem a person like that creates will be solved. Removing Trump from office with violence will make him into a martyr. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." And this isn't Obi Wan Kenobi we're talking about here. Actions of this nature are only for truly intractable dictators. The only way I personally see that Trump could maintain a truly Hitler like grip on America is if he stayed President past two terms. Even with as much collective growing as America has to do, we are almost certainly too developed to let something like this stand. Careful with the righteous collectivist stuff. It's the perfect smokescreen for the ego at both and individual and collective level. Social psychologists have done many studies on mob mentality, people in that kind of trance are for all intents and purposes behaving as though their intelligence/consciousness/critical thinking is cut down by half. I follow your stuff on youtube, Emerald. This type of thinking is ultimately beneath you and well within your ability to transcend given enough time and work if the level of quality of your videos on youtube is any indication.  

Actually, I'm well aware of the point that Leo is making. And at earlier stages in my contemplation process on how society functions, I would have settled there. His perspective is not wrong persay. It's just limited in that it fails to recognize the function of and inextricable nature of collective human dynamics and outrage/shame culture. His perspective ignores that truth.

But I'm pretty sure he actually agrees with me, because he commented affirmatively on another post about the value of Greta Thundberg 'Green-shaming' climate change deniers and do-nothing politicians and recognized this shaming as a good tactic for moving society forward. 

Here is the quote...

"Good stuff. She's filling the important role of shaming folks out of their complacency. Shaming is an important tactic when it comes to raising social consciousness. It worked for the civil rights movement.

The evil of the default position needs to be spelled out for people because we are like fish in water."

But perhaps he doesn't want to encourage this behavior towards someone like Trudeau who is Liberal but exhibits racist behavior because he doesn't see shaming as valuable in this situation.

He has more sympathy toward Trudeau, I think. So, he doesn't want him tossed to the dogs but he's okay with climate change deniers being tossed to the dogs. 

But I would imagine, generally, that people of color might have a different perspective than him because this issue directly affects them. They would probably recognize the same value in 'Green-shaming' Justin Trudeau and his ignorance in the same ways Leo sees the value in 'Green-shaming' climate change deniers and their ignorance.

The fact of the matter is that once you become more aware of and accepting of uncomfortable truths about the machinations of humanity as a natural and impersonal force, you will understand better how society works. And you will be able to respond intelligently to the situation at hand.

So, while it may be problematic, it simply is what it is. You can't get rid of mob rule and collective outrage. It's built right into us. You can only point it consciously and directionally at those that are doing actions that negatively impact people.

So, understand that what I'm saying is that outrage mobs and collective rage is as natural and impersonal as a hurricane or an Earthquake. It does as much good in disapproving of collective outrage as it does disapproving of the weather.

The best thing you can do is prepare for the weather, take proper precautions, and sometimes benefit by setting out rain barrels. And setting out rain barrels is what I'm advocating, nothing more or less. Also, you can learn a lot about collective cycles that way.

And if you're under the impression that outrage mobs are just going to go away. They're not. And at this juncture in history, it wouldn't even be good if they did. They keep people on their toes, and force people to face with uncomfortable questions and truths.

They're simply part of the way human beings create and solidify taboos. They've always been part of human society and always will be.

If your gripe is with human nature, you will be fighting a losing battle. Make peace with the uglier aspects of human nature, and you will be able to understand how things work.

And like Leo implied in his other post about Greta Thunberg's speech, you will see the very Yellow value that exists in 'Green-shaming' those who are resisting change and refusing to wake up.

Edit: @Leo Gura Do you recognize how our perspective is the same about needing to accept outrage culture and collective shaming as a potentially useful aspect of society? And that we just disagree on who it should/shouldn't be pointed at?

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Emerald

[Leo Gura]

Shaming some folks in a UN speech is one thing, sicking a mob onto a political leader for a minor past mistake to get revenge is another thing.

This requires a delicate balancing act. I don't think people should be fired for minor mistakes, like what happened with Al Franken. Sure, he made some mistakes, but did it really deserve a firing?

We need some way of repremanding a person without destroying their whole career.