Ultimately, Amber will suffer from it’s own “Amberness”. The way for it to not suffer in an exclusively Amber world view is, as you show, to include Green (expanded sensitivity). Expanded sensitivity is not a “different Amber”, but Green.
Although this seems mostly like just semantic didactic games to me, and whatever we call it bears no relevance to what it actually is.
@FermentedAgave
I’m going to just point out that you do this to myself and to @corey-devos, and to anyone who you make up is “Left”.
All these emotions your project (such as anger) are completely YOU, and only YOU.
Nobody’s angry except you, deep down. That’s the only reason I can see that you throw that accusation so liberally onto other people in every single discussion.
Nah, not really. Admire my massive frontal lobes.
It’s unreal that you chastise me for “being a mean bastard” without any cognitive dissonance, when I haven’t insulted or disparaged you in any way. I think you are wrong about this issue, that’s it. And I laid out my reasoning for that view, as accurately as I know how to.
I haven’t made comments or accusations about your interiors, your motivations, or your character. And yet, even in this single comment, you make several disparaging comments and assumptions about my interiors. You are projecting your aggression onto me, I think. If I had to guess, I’d say you are doing so because you are internalizing my criticisms of the GOP as a social holon as a personal attack against you. Mind your amygdala, brother. 
Yes they are massive frontal lobes and you should be very proud of them.
You do keep laying out in excruciating fashion the frame you are living out of. I had hoped we might create bridging between frames, that elusive transcendence in the in-between, that we claim to be looking for.
Reality bites.
At first I thought you were gaslighting me, but really want to thank you for diagnosing my dementia. I love you Ray.
I’m sorry you experience it as “excruciating”. It’s very rewarding and even liberating for me personally.
I believe, of the two of us, I’ve been the one to outline possible compromises for this and a number of other issues. Sometimes those compromises even push against the leftist narrative, such as when I said the four quadrants tell us that trans athletes probably should be made to compete according to the biological body they were born into, and not according to their identity or preferred gender.
That is me being “inclusive” of multiple points of view. Are there other possible compromises to be discussed? Almost certainly, yes.
And yet I don’t see you giving any ground whatsoever in those discussions, and in fact getting aggressive whenever there is any facet of right-wing thinking that I reject. Because no, I do not “include” things like bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. I do not include these views, which are incompatible with modern and postmodern views. Just like I do not include my own views from when I was 13 years old.
What I do include, however, are the underlying values that generate those views. And then I integrate those values into an overall value-stack that also includes orange universalism, and green pluralism.
Meanwhile you accuse me of being aggressive and “amygdala driven” while you have a very long record of being antagonistic and calling us Marxists, collectivists, etc. Are you holding yourself to the same standards you expect from me?
What’s interesting to me, is this is the EXACT same rationale being used by proponents of CRT, just turned inside-out. That everything post-amber is built on broken foundations, and therefore we need to reject current expressions of modernity/post-modernity, and return to our amber roots, so we can then maybe one day restructure these higher stages in a way that is deemed “more healthy” by amber thinkers. Both amber wokists and amber conservatives are calling for “social regression” in service of their own narrow definitions of “what’s right”.
Because that is the rallying call of amber, anywhere you find it.
So what’s your plan to turn the Amber Wokeists into healthy Green, meanwhile bypassing Orange?
How realistic is this?
Corey, you paint with a very dark and gloomy brush your vision of today’s world.
Anyone that is unsupportive of unhealthy Amber Woke/Intersectionality you paint as not Green and then devolve into anti-LGBTQAI+ including anti-Trans, anti-Gay. You then leap into anti-Progress, anti-women’s rights, and racism.
You don’t understand the vast majority of the conservative population nor the thought frames which they operate from.
Explain them - I don’t think you can.
I think all you can do is try to make up imaginary enemies and give emotions or bad motives to them that you need to defend against.
Which, I would argue - is what the whole Florida Bill and conservative monologue regarding it is all about. Make up an enemy, decide how they are somehow wronging you or harming innocent children, then pass a law that does absolutely nothing worthwhile and doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone.
And you want us to indulge this and come down to that level? hahaha
Not a chance in hell.
So again - YOU explain the frames the conservative population operates from - and do it without creating Liberal straw men.
So what’s your plan to turn the Amber Wokeists into healthy Green, meanwhile bypassing Orange? How realistic is this?
No, the plan is basically to leave them behind, without rejecting the healthy green frames they think they are pushing (babies, bathwater, etc.). There is nothing i can do to “turn them into green” because that’s not how development works. Most I can do is try to rescue the pluralistic babies from the absolutist bathwater.
There is no compromising with absolutism, whether it’s found on the left or the right. The best I can hope for is a better way to address these fundamental challenges, so that the discourse has a better place to go rather than regressing back to amber.
Corey, you paint with a very dark and gloomy brush your vision of today’s world.
Interesting. I’m not the one constantly expressing fears about groomers and pedophiles around every corner, Marxist collectivists taking over America, migrant caravans, or whatever the right-wing enemy du jour happens to be. Seems pretty dark and gloomy, if you ask me. Feels like more projection to me.
You don’t understand the vast majority of the conservative population nor the thought frames which they operate from.
Your certainly allowed to hold that opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have made far more effort to create post-ideological bridges in these discussions than you have. Typically you reject my efforts at establishing more integrative frames, because they do not maintain 100% fidelity to your own conservative ideological preferences.
And now, this in:
Here’s an idea: can we just not? LMAO
1557 clarifies that parents are the top decision maker regarding sexuality and gender identity for 8 and under.
You can express moral outrage at the affront to the Allies and spin off into burnings at the stake and all the other accusations you and Corey are making, but that’s your respective framings.
Think of it like a sign post at the entrance to Denali - Don’t come between baby bears and parent bears. Doesn’t matter if it’s brown or grizzly or polar or black or Mommy’s or Daddys or Momdys or Dadmys.
And no, Bears aren’t anti-human or human phobic or anti-shoe-wearing-biped or anti-granola. They just don’t want you messing with their babies.
So if a Rainbow Warrior insists on messing with the baby bears they have been warned that they will be chewed on. Its on the sign at the entrance.
Personally I wouldn’t mess with the cute little baby bears, but then again I also don’t put my hand on a hot stove, or run with scissors, or call mess with people’s children.
Hope this helps.
And in the 1950s and 60s, parents demanded to be the top decision maker regarding race and racial identity in their childrens schools. Fortunately, the state superseded that. And now, as you say, it’s a “settled issue”. How did it get “settled”? By progressives of the time forcing racist parents to comply.
And, by the way, I consider none of this to be “settled”. Civilization is constantly fighting against regressive forces from within, at all times. A few months ago you told me that homosexuality was a “settled issue” on the right, after that most recent progressive victory. And yet, here we are, defending the use of the word “groomer” to describe homosexuals. Abortion was also “settled”, and now we are seeing a similar regression across many/most red states.
These things are never “settled”, and emergents such as civil rights need to be fought for anew by every new generation, or else entropy always wins. Gen X is learning this lesson hard right now, as we’ve typically been disengaged from civic processes, and seeing the consequences of our generational apathy.
@FermentedAgave
Again again again - please show where I expressed “moral outrage” or kindly stfu and keep your projections to yourself.
I need to research how the title of this law was generated, because interestingly, it shares a title with a far more well-known passage from the ACA.
“Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), in covered health programs or activities.”
Through a mirror darkly. Coincidence, or purposeful symbolic rejection of healthy universalism and pluralism?
Yup. Kind of race/gender/… blind which blows up your Intersectionality based caste noosphere vision.
Huh? That is language from the ACA, not from Florida. The ACA is the one being “race/gender blind” by explicitly saying that healthcare cannot be denied for these reasons. NOT discriminating would be “gender blind”. Explicating “you’re not allowed to talk about homosexuals” is the opposite of “blind”, because it is choosing a particular group to exclude.
What do you imagine is “my” Intersectionality based caste noosphere vision? Are you projecting a strawman onto me?
So you’re fighting the noble fight, righting the wrongs perpetrated upon the righteous, protector of the preferred classes… Basically a modern day Knights Templar.
Just don’t get between baby bear and mommy bear.