|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 10:42:39 GMT -5
This happened to pop up vincent . I never saw him do a solo video before. He's different. He's a lot more grounded and less bubbly; also his focus is futuristic (seems one against and one for Ne). Also I know quite a bit about this case and this is a very careless analysis, even considering his youth and the polarizing nature of the topic. For instance the baker hardly doesn't think the couple is human-he hires gay employees and was obviously distressed by the moral dilemma; also the couple probably didn't shell out a dime because these cases are funded by advocacy organizations which are funded by limousine liberals, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 10:55:05 GMT -5
Also, while in general Daniel is right that the upshot was the can was kicked down the road, he leaves out important facts about why, such as that gay marriage wasn't even legal in Colorado when the cake was attempted to be purchased and the first court, which was actually some kind of local human rights panel, likened the baker to a Nazi. Etc. What I find a bit strange is how Daniel neither sees the baker's side nor shows the usual vitriol, it's just 'childish', the clueless baker and what are the effects on us when we should be doing great nanotechnology projects. vincent .
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2020 11:17:38 GMT -5
-Being (very) different solo and in groups is in itself a strong argument for Fe being in an absolute value slot. -His futuristic focus isn't necessarily Ne. He doesn't seem to list options and alternatives, he try to weight the historic importance of it. Its meaning in the current Zeitgeist. -He seems to get the Ti of the ruling (its legal significance) pretty well as far as i can see. -He becomes careless about the episodic details, the history of the case, and the practical side of it. Which points toward low Te and very low Si. -Te comes back at the end when he talk about big projects, but it's quite vague and it sounds like "Te for the sake of Fe". Not inconsistent with role. Hardly consistent with tertiary or demonstrative (not delineated enough).
"We" is the subject of most sentences except in a few interesting cases -when he express this weird paranoid thought about what the baker could do with the cake if he actually baked it. The theme here is Si based. It has something to do with bodily disgust about all those weird physical things you have no control over. Which fits Si polr imo. -when he dares the religious right to be more outspoken about theocracy. ("I'm fine with theocracy, just say it"). Deltas and alphas probably wouldn't. And this really sound like a Beta challenge.
I'm still with FeNi. With a lot more confidence that i was before actually.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2020 11:19:24 GMT -5
It's not inconsistent with Ni aux tendency to dogmatism and Fi ignoring. He really doesn't get the Fi of the situation, but it sounds more like neglect than polr confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 11:53:55 GMT -5
There is other stuff he doesn't get vincent , that surprises me--he being such a political animal and the channel being so open-minded. After the confirmation of Gorsuch, Kennedy was now the swing vote in a divided Supreme Court. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on all three landmark gay rights cases, including marriage, and he did so because of his commitment to individual rights as a centrist. As such he was going to care about the baker's rights too so this case was no slam dunk and no one knew which way he would go. But it was assumed that however he went, it would break a tie and be a tablets etched in stone victory for one side and disaster for the other--and if he ruled for the baker, there could be a cascading effect on civil rights of other groups of people in favor of individuals' right to chose whom to serve, etc. What happened instead was that Kennedy engineered, or was part of engineering, a brilliant strategy. By throwing out the entire case with previous pro-couple rulings and remanding two similar cases back to the lower courts for review, while clearly stating that this ruling did not discourage future similar cases from being heard, the court said: Gays can bring refusal of services for marriage to the courts but it better not be a frivolous, malicious case. Bakers can bring the verdict all the way to the Supreme Court but don't expect to win. And so... Maybe gay couples should go to gay wedding-friendly bakers rather than ones that advertise as Evangelical Christian in a suburb with 25 other bakers who don't. But if they do harass another Evangelical baker, maybe the Evangelical baker won't win next time and should consider just making the cake. All lawyers at the local level-take note. The strategy was so brilliant that the ruling was 7 to 2 in favor of the baker. Two liberal judges switched sides. What the strategy was doing was demanding we all grow up. And at the time, things were so volatile that the ruling defused potent disaster. There were going to be protests either way and our protests were getting increasingly violent. One person had already been killed. Daniel seems to be missing all this. This wasn't kicking any ol' can down the road. It was more like defusing a bomb. And it's not like it was hard to find gay lawyers online supporting the baker--what I mean is Daniel is very very different from me. We're emphasizing very different things. And for all I know, if I said all this to him, he'd not only agree but say he already thought of it--but at the end of the day, still can got kicked down the road, so?
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 12:03:05 GMT -5
Does this fit supervisor? Working on the same project, agreeing on ultimate goals, but focusing on different aspects as essential? Does the supervisor tend to see the bigger picture? IS Daniel seeing the bigger picture?"
I guess if the supervisor has a big picture frame vis a vis the polr of the supervised then yes. For instance if I am supervising an Ni polr they'll be missing or distorting 'the big picture' I'm seeing.
But in this case it seems not so cut and dry. By bringing the chill attitude, Daniel may in fact be bringing the 'big picture' of a positive Fe outcome.
But other things he missed that I think are part of a bigger one. I guess that's Ni frame. I may be Fe polr but I can predict what's sustainable about Fe trends over time. Dehumanizing the baker in the name of love is not, because every progressive onslaught causes a conservative backlash...
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 12:08:03 GMT -5
What I mean vincent is my bottom line is that these cases don't belong in court, we should be working them out together. And prosecuting these bakers and floral arrangers and tailors was doing far more harm than good for gay rights anyway. I always maintained this. They don't belong in court and SCOTUS got them out. I think that's what Daniel also means. But I'm really surprised at the extent of the difference in focus. Yet, that he even chose to make the video on it shows that it was very important for him to tell us all to grow up, too.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 12:49:38 GMT -5
-His futuristic focus isn't necessarily Ne. He doesn't seem to list options and alternatives, he try to weight the historic importance of it. Its meaning in the current Zeitgeist. -He seems to get the Ti of the ruling (its legal significance) pretty well as far as i can see. Yeah, we seem to both get that within history the significance is 'let it go, bigger fish to fry', and this takes considerable focusing of the telescope amidst all the noise. It takes 'skill'. What he doesn't seem to get is the skill of the court's Te, the defectiveness of the couple's Te, and the flame of the all-around Fi that the couple fueled and the court extinguished. Highlighting instead the childish baker--this 'most not me'. Okay, so Evangelicals are very old-fashioned, what else is new?
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 13:09:01 GMT -5
To be fair, I had been following the case for a year because I was following right wing media more than left. This case was not mentioned in liberal or left media until right before the ruling. So it's not unlikely I gave a lot more thought to the potential dire consequences and was thus very relieved at the ruling. Still Daniel misses more imo than he should. Okay I'll stop.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2020 13:41:56 GMT -5
Will reply soon. I need to get at least SOME of the Si details and Te trickery of this case myself to understand what he is missing and why.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 14:13:13 GMT -5
Okay, a gay couple in suburban Denver went to an Evangelical Christian baker who is known as such (one of 25 bakers in that town and hundreds in the area), one so religious he doesn't even make Halloween goodies because it's pagan, and asked him for a wedding cake, for an out of state wedding because gay marriage wasn't legal at the time in Colorado.
The baker said no but offered to sell them any pre-made cake and also referred the couple to other bakers but they took him to court. The local court was a human rights tribunal of some sort which treated the baker horribly, comparing him to a lyncher and a Nazi, and ruling in favor of the couple, so the baker appealed it to the circuit court. The circuit court upheld the local decision and the baker took it to the Supreme Court.
Somewhere in that time frame gay marriage became legal in the US by SCOTUS ruling, opinion authored by Kennedy.
The baker made a video and gave interviews explaining his quandary and what he could lose--his license and business--but that designing a cake was an art for him, very personal expression, so he could sell a cake but not design one for a gay wedding, because then he would be speaking in favor of the wedding, and the wedding was a sin.
I knew abut it because I'd been following right wing media closely and this was one of two big cases of very religious designers going through the courts up to SCOTUS over gay weddings. I knew when SCOTUS would hear the case and I was dreading it. But if you weren't on the right or really involved in gay advocacy you could easily have been unaware of these cases. I would go so far as to say they were suppressed in liberal and left wing media.
The same thing happened when one fine day a few years ago we all found out out of the blue that gay marriage was legal. Hardly anyone even knew it had gone to SCOTUS. This may be a tactic the advocacy groups and their limousine liberal backers use--not publicizing so that if they have a victory everyone on their/our side is jubilant but if they have a defeat everyone is caught unaware and doesn't have time to think rationally about what was really fair and/or strategically sound. Instead everyone will just be outraged at evil Fasicist conservatives.
So Daniel may not have known about the case until the time it was ruled on but to his credit almost everyone on the left was predictably outraged and he's not. To his detriment the information was available showing the baker had a moral dilemma and the couple were kinda shits for pursuing this particular case.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 14:29:24 GMT -5
ps So I think part of what is going on here cognitively is that Daniel does have 'good Fe' and his good Fe sees a bigger Fe picture than I do, synchronically--in terms of being able to actually embody the optimal 'politics of feeling' realm--(there are bigger fish to fry). But my Ni frame does see a bigger picture diachronically and my Te and Fi are slashers. So if Daniel were to be my supervisor what he would be supplying is lateral perspective, taking me out of my Cassandra with Saturn's Scythe state. A state in contrast to yours, which more or less has both Daniel's lateral and my longitudinal perspective but tends to be more passive than either about articulating it. I think Ni frame suffers a certain basic distortion whether funneled through Te or Fe. Te over- and Fe under-contours Ni. vincent
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2020 14:30:24 GMT -5
I actually followed the very first developments of this case, years ago. Because i was an active member on a board full of right wingers, including strong evangelical types. I remember that, at the time, i argued that it was at least in part a "freedom of speech" issue, with some real "slippery slope" risks. And as it often happened, the resident french leftist sided with them, again.
I wasn't aware of all the steps that happened later, the lawyers strategies and the intricacies of the US justice system.
I mention this because i think it highlights some relevant typological differences between him and me.
The fact that, being on the other side of the Atlantic, i was apparently aware of the (initial) Si episodes/Ni meaning before him is a very strong argument for Si polr imo (and against Ni frame) He doesn't seem Te polr to me, because he does seems to use it a bit, but his Te focus seems to be very narrow and subservient to Fe.
Overall i don't see anything here that would be inconsistent with Fi ignoring, Si polr and Te role.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2020 14:36:51 GMT -5
ps So I think part of what is going on here cognitively is that Daniel does have 'good Fe' and his good Fe sees a bigger Fe picture than I do, synchronically--in terms of being able to actually embody the optimal 'politics of feeling' realm--there are bigger fish to fry). But my Ni frame does see a bigger picture diachronically and my Te and Fi are slashers. So if Daniel were to be my supervisor what he would be supplying is lateral perspective, taking me out of my Cassandra with Saturn's Scythe state. A state in contrast to yours, which more or less has both Daniel's lateral and my longitudinal perspective but tends to be more passive than either about articulating it. I think Ni frame suffers a certain basic distortion whether funneled through Te or Fe. Te over- and Fe under-contours Ni. vincent
Yes, this is spot on, and this is exactly how supervision works.
Supervisor alleviate some of your polr pain (and might even motivate you to overcome it when working with them) because the supervisor's aux is the supervisee frame, allowing for synchronication of perceptions or goals.
You would ALSO reciprocate by alleviating some of their polr confusion and pain because your ROLE is their polr. But of course, you wouldn't do it as well as THEIR supervisor would, which is the main reason the relationship is asymetrical. But you would try your best, and it's the other side of the supervision relationship.
When two people with the same frame and different middle axis met, what happens is more symetrical but it plays out as "division of labor" rather than "support".
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jan 27, 2020 14:52:30 GMT -5
Well, see, that's what I was trying to understand--how to account for both the 'synchronization of perceptions or goals' and the disparity in emphasis and affect. To be honest vincent , if Daniel hadn't said the baker doesn't think the couple is human I'd probably be fine with the whole thing. But that is a HUGE mistake and it also seems like one of careless sorting through archive. Like he assumes a 'category'--dehumanizing Evangelics--which simply doesn't apply here at all. This seems like BOTH my Si and T in general ARE stronger than his. His strengths do seem to be more around Fe and Se relative to me. Like he really knows how to put forth a 'mood for the times'. In this way he really isn't far off from the FeNi as most emotionally in their body of Sandoval site-it's just that he has a bit of an ET body.
|
|