Why didn’t you lead with something that might lead to a “bridge” discussion such as this?
Or just testing the waters for a shit fight this morning? What’s going on inside your Inner Individual quadrant this morning?
I want to point out that well-to-do families already have school choice, which inherently gives them much influence over the curriculum taught to their children.
If it gets shitty enough at the local public school, these families simply put their kids in a Montessori or Catholic or Prep school and move on.
For the low and middle income, 1557 gives them some influence over the curriculum being taught their children.
I’m happy that you’re happy with what your daughter is being taught, and hope that you have some influence if ever you aren’t happy with it what she’s being taught.
LOL yup, I can get cheeky.
I actually posted something very similar many comments back, but it was ignored. I also posted another comment that actually breaks all of this down into the four quadrants, and demonstrates why discussing “gender” in class is not the same as discussing “sex”, and how we can have the former without teaching about genitals.
Fair question. For one, I read that Twitter thread, and felt absolutely disgusted by how so many conservatives seem to be lapsing back into these 1980s tactics of “gays are pedophile groomers” language, and how little pushback this messaging is getting from other conservatives. So if there is any emotionality going into my posts, it’s coming from the heartbreak I felt after reading that story, and from the fact that we still have not found a good way to stand up against this sort of escalating bigotry and indoctrination in our country that is being generated by right wing media.
Which led me to trying to better understand and describe the logic of the “groomer” language, which I described a couple comments back.
I’m happy that you’re happy with what your daughter is being taught, and hope that you have some influence if ever you aren’t happy with it what she’s being taught.
Thanks! I love my state. However, my empathy extends well past my own family, and it’s painful knowing that there are thousands of others like my kid’s friend who are now being taught that their interior reality, or their family’s lifestyle, is shameful.
Let me ask you again: do you think that parents should have the right to be racist, and for their kids to be exempt from any teachings that would go against that? Should parents have the right to, say, force a school to re-segregate if they have enough votes at the local PTA?
Do you think parents have the right to force schools to ban the teaching of evolution and critical thinking in school, if it goes against their belief system? Do they have the right to force schools to offer exclusively Christian religious teachings instead?
Wouldn’t all of these be examples of “the state superseding the wishes of a child’s parents”?
Descending will neither transform nor include. It’s just goes to a lower level. It separates. Amber cannot transform and include green lol.
But can’t it? It’s a spiral, not a line. When evolution comes back around, it’s not the same amber, but a new amber now informed by green, transcending its previous incarnation by widening its amber embrace. It is different than Green, its intention is not about holding multiple perspectives, it could care less about anyone’s perspective but its own (The Woke). Amber is about its rules, roles, traditions but this amber is now informed by its expanded sensitivity to more people and new rules (gendering) new roles (daddy and papa) new traditions (Juneteenth)
It’s one unverified tweet that’s likely true of one experience with one whacko, that is likely illegal already. Even though I don’t want anyone to accost children like that, you clearly had more than enough moral outrage for 30 or 40 people. Ya got that one covered.
Now where I’m concerned with your heartfelt reaction is that you are quite ok “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, simply because you’re having a “heartfelt reaction” over a single alleged incident propagated on the very internet that you claim has destroyed our society. Would you then use that one incident to drive legislation and policy - I think you would continually dip back into the outrage, just as you dip into tip-o-spear’s confrontations to fire yourself up. Get a grip on yourself.
You are acting in bad faith Corey. You are letting your Progressiphobia destroy your ability to rational thought. Racism is a settled issue. I assume you are trying to protect your ego framing with deflection and hyperbole.
Settled issues. Another bad faith argument.
And Corey, I know this shit all really bothers you. All this Intersectionality will suffer a decade long decline and it hurts. Rather than focusing on the hurt, I would recommend focusing on the changes you can impact, influence, and how to perhaps manifest them.
I think it depends on how it’s implemented.
On an individual level, actual regression is very, very rare, barring things like head injuries. We can “return to” previous stages of our own development in order to strengthen the stage, do shadow work, etc., which would be a temporary “regression in service of the ego” — but again, the regression is temporary, within a safe therapeutic container, and is done in service of the “higher” stages.
On a social level, regression is much more common, but it’s rarely in the service of anything other than the stage it emerges from. Because if it is a genuine regression, then it also comes with a holistic changing of the governing ruleset that can make it much more difficult for people to grow beyond. A school that eliminates critical thinking from its curriculum, for example, will produce fewer rational thinkers in the long run, and therefore fewer opportunities to challenge the regressive laws and policies they exist within.
1 Like
And propagate upwards a better Orange and better Green. I think it’s what’s happening and what will happen, regardless of current interpretations of the Scared Texts of Wilber.
1 Like
It’s funny, because several months ago you told me that homosexuality was also a “settled issue” among conservatives, and there would be no backslide there. Hell, abortion was also a “settled issue” since Roe. And yet here we are, defending the use of “groomer” and “pedophile” language around a law that deliberately targets gay students, families, and communities, as well as anti-abortion legislation sweeping through red states that don’t even allow the victims of rape to abort.
And stop trying to weaponize my empathy against me. It is not a quality to be ashamed of, especially when it can be used in service of wisdom, compassion, and more skillful enactment. It’s one thing to “see” a perspective, and quite another to “take” a perspective, and allow yourself inhabit it from the inside out.
Also funny, because I think I mentioned a very obvious compromise here, and is the same suggestion I have been pushing for in this thread for days.
Talk about “bad faith”.
Just to track the discussion, your accusations about my “interior quadrants” emerged from me using a famous Trump quote, tongue in cheek, to describe a different group. And you seemed “hurt” by that repurposing of a clearly bigoted quote, which then led to accusations about my interiors. And then you tried to frame whatever empathy I feel as a weakness, while simultaneously appealing to your own empathy for the nameless “parents” who just want to express their “rights” to protect little Johnny from the forbidden knowledge that gay people exist.
Again, these are protected classes we are talking about, and the FL bill is explicitly designed to silence one of those protected classes. Which is why I was asking whether parents have the right to override the protections afforded to other protected classes, like blacks.
When you say “it’s a settled issue”, do you mean “it is a settled issue that ‘parents rights’ do not supersede the school system in these cases”? And would you agree with me, that is probably a good thing?
“use your empathy against you” is quite the ego response. You, as we all can, sometimes turn into a mean bastard when we get worked up. “in bad faith”. Your Amygdala is running the show over in Coreyland.
No Corey. The FL bill is specifically designed to limit discussions of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation with children under the age of 8. The teachers and parents can do whatever they choose outside of the school building. Parents can do literally anything they want, out side the school yard.
You keep using the term “Protected Class” knowing full well the DEI/Intersectionality Industrial Complex has turned civil rights into racial and gender descrimination - Preferred and Not Preferred Castes. So the peasants are revolting,and just happen to have in many states overwhelming “populist” support (i.e. votes).
Take a transcendent view and try to think past your moral outrage, your religious zealotry and give Americans a shred of respect for their caring humanity. You’re Progressiphobia is shockingly fanatically religious in feel. Did a conservative do something to you? Why such bitter animus?
We live in a Liberal Democracy Corey. Issues are settled in the US once they navigated the Legislative and Judicial systems at both State and Federal levels. That is until the issues re-navigate the Legislative and Judicial systems at both State and Federal levels, based on the Will of the People.
If you really want to settle something, then amend the Constitution. That makes it really really difficult to reconsider settled issues. It’s that brain dead simple. Complexity an average 12 year old can comprehend, if we were to bother teaching Civics instead of Intersectionality .
Until us Wilberites get the Righteousness of Integralism spread to the Unwashed Masses, or get them in chains, it’s the reality that we will continue living in.
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.