| Milgram's obedience experiment and Arendt's concept of banality of evil both suggest that ordinary people can commit harmful acts when obeying authority, highlighting a lack of critical moral thinking. https://brainly.com/question/44340520 i say im often obedient but not always so thats why i think im no saint and i can be evil too at times but personally i consider myself lesser evil so how about you? and thoughts? |
| As a slave I'm always blindly obedient to my mistress (if I had one) By the way, speaking of Milgram experiment: https://myanimelist.net/anime/47794/MILGRAM The concept of this Anime might be the most unique and interactive concept ever. |
ZarutakuMay 9, 10:06 AM
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
Reply to Zarutaku
As a slave I'm always blindly obedient to my mistress (if I had one)
By the way, speaking of Milgram experiment: https://myanimelist.net/anime/47794/MILGRAM
The concept of this Anime might be the most unique and interactive concept ever.
By the way, speaking of Milgram experiment: https://myanimelist.net/anime/47794/MILGRAM
The concept of this Anime might be the most unique and interactive concept ever.
| @Zarutaku there is almost all anime for everything eh |
| Yes, it explains how teachers could get through with forcing even little children to wear useless masks that have more negative effects physiologically and psychologically. If I had been in a position of power like that, I would have never forced anyone wearing anything useless and harmful like that and especially wouldn't bully people into taking specific medication to get some service If it weren't for the irrational high fines, I would have been far less obedient with mask wearing back then in public, but at least people didn't care in private settings |
| The governments are responsible for every evil conspiracy btw... |
Reply to DesuMaiden
The governments are responsible for every evil conspiracy btw...
| @DesuMaiden i always find it sad that first world people with all the benefits of a good government they have compared to evil corrupt governments of poor countries are always anti government like you trust me you do not know what corrupt evil government is like since you live in a rich country |
Reply to deg
@DesuMaiden i always find it sad that first world people with all the benefits of a good government they have compared to evil corrupt governments of poor countries are always anti government like you
trust me you do not know what corrupt evil government is like since you live in a rich country
trust me you do not know what corrupt evil government is like since you live in a rich country
| @deg false...the first world governments are also evil. The "rich" countries are only rich because they extort and plunder wealth from the poor countries. |
Reply to DesuMaiden
@deg false...the first world governments are also evil. The "rich" countries are only rich because they extort and plunder wealth from the poor countries.
| @DesuMaiden in some cases sure but corrupt governments and evil politicians are more common on poor countries |
Reply to deg
@DesuMaiden in some cases sure but corrupt governments and evil politicians are more common on poor countries
| @deg that is not true. All politicians are corrupt and evil. And anyone trusting the government is naive and foolish. |
Reply to DesuMaiden
@deg that is not true. All politicians are corrupt and evil. And anyone trusting the government is naive and foolish.
| @DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more |
Reply to deg
@DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
| @deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared. |
| It's called conformity. In our evolutionary roots, we did need a cohesive group wherein members cooperate with one another and ensure each other's survival by protection/resource sharing. A non-conformist will cause strife within the group which may weaken their willingness to accept her as their own, leading to that trait not being passed down as much. @Zarutaku, thanks for the rec! It says music but, does it have plot or? |
 |
Auron_ said: thanks for the rec! It says music but, does it have plot or? Yes, the show has an overarching plot and additionally each episode is a song with a separate plot. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| It's funny how most of people I met who were obsessed over authorities and science, were repulsed by the whole idea of that experiment performed by Stanley Milgram to research the matter of people's obedience to authority. Hypocrisy? Cognitive dissonance? Or maybe, that's what I think it was, simply lack of intelligence. It's good to listen to experts, especially when your knowledge on a subject is not as high to make you aware of some things. But choosing to be obsessed over it, aka becoming oblivious to doing basic research, pushing away all morals, and deciding to become a mindless fanatic ready to shovel down everyone's throat anything said by the authority they believe in? It ain't sane and rational obedience, or listening to scientists. It's just a human being willingfully turning into a brainless zombie. Am aggressive one, if I may add. As for the obedience itself, I have my brain. It's impossible to say whether I'm obedient or not in general, because it depends on a situation. I don't break law, so I'm obedient to the country I'm living in. At the same time, I don't believe in anything new that popular scientists say, especially in the fields they don't even research themselves. Same goes with morality. I wouldn't continue the experiment mentioned earlier, after hearing out of the blue that someone had heart problems and couldn't stand receiving those electric shocks. No matter whether it was true or not, risking someone else's life or health for the sake of a mere psychological experiment that didn't even have to be performed to research the topic of human obedience, would be out of question. |
โจSaint Seiya Club๐ |
| The "banality of evil" is the most laughable philosophical theory ever created (probably to cover up the reputation of her lover Heidegger...) for the Nazis in charge of the Final Solution were anything but ordinary people. How could an ordinary mind seriously think about implementing such a grotesque and inhumane plan? Studies have showed that most soldiers only reluctantly shoot at the enemy, so how would a normal person decide to carry a mass slaughter that would last for years? This theory is just shallow, and the Milgram Experiment is useless, for we have real-life data in a military context where the authority is considerably more threatening and the consequences of disobedience possibly catastrophic (severe corporal punishment or death). I do not care about rules and "authority," but I obviously would never break the law. |
| I don't even need a reason to break rules or violate law, I do it just for fun sometimes. Not sure what is that "authority" thing you all mean. |
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Meusnier said: milgram's research was concerned with direct presence of authority and obedience, which is a bit more complex. there are a lot of problems with the experiments, ethically and otherwise, but they are valuable jumping off points. we understand how conformity, authority, and group processes work a lot better now after bodies of research it inspired. calling it useless is very weird to me. it was also replicated more ethically with studies like burger (2009). there also used to be a critique of milgram's two famous experiments that the 60s american culture bred the conformity that led to the results but later studies addressed this with contemporary polish samples, for ex.The "banality of evil" is the most laughable philosophical theory ever created (probably to cover up the reputation of her lover Heidegger...) for the Nazis in charge of the Final Solution were anything but ordinary people. How could an ordinary mind seriously think about implementing such a grotesque and inhumane plan? Studies have showed that most soldiers only reluctantly shoot at the enemy, so how would a normal person decide to carry a mass slaughter that would last for years? This theory is just shallow, and the Milgram Experiment is useless, for we have real-life data in a military context where the authority is considerably more threatening and the consequences of disobedience possibly catastrophic (severe corporal punishment or death). i dont disagree about there being unusual individuals who led, it's a problem i have with that recent film zone of interest. it's a great film for challenging the idea of looking at the past as a set of dead facts (very walter benjamin-esque idea), but it presents höss as a relatable individual when he was honestly the poster child for psychopathy. the film is also responsible for the contemporary normalization for the "banality of evil" phrase, i think, bc every critic repeated it and so did every fan review, which is unfortunate. but "unusual" individuals, even exceptionally awful ones, have etiologies we can and should examine so that we can enact early prevention. and groups tend to work in weirdly influential ways. that's the whole motivation for large parts of research in social psych, btw. jewish psychologists who had every motivation to discount external factors and blame some unknowable intrinsic property stood above that desire and worked towards empirical research so that we could prevent this sort of thing from happening. the best way to repeat atrocity is to distance yourself from it. also the opinion piece you linked to that references the research you are citing says the opposite of what you are intending, saying that we've gotten much better at forcing that conformity over time lol the speculation on arendt's relational motivation is a bit off in the timeline too for various reasons, but its a cute joke ig |
codyMay 9, 6:15 PM
| If there's anything I've learned from the past four years, it's that people who are fearful and demoralized will do anything -surrender every last ounce of freedom if they are fearful enough. They will huddle up to their aggressors as if they have stockholm syndrome simply to feel a momentary semblance of protection, even if they have to burn down everything around them. Civil disobedience is a moral imperative. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| i dont know that experiment but it seems fucking obvious lol. im quite obedient and I am also consciously so. when I don't rebel, it's a choice I made. because I don't really know what to do, at the end of the day. And at the end of the day, what matters is family and friends, i think. but I like the evil to be known, I want it to be known to everyone, and maybe others will react differently than me or maybe they will react the same. lol i want everyone to try on the glasses from they live |
rian2May 9, 10:21 PM
 |
| ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ, ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ, ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ, ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ, ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ, ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐, ๐ข๐ญ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ. |
 |
cody said: Meusnier said: milgram's research was concerned with direct presence of authority and obedience, which is a bit more complex. there are a lot of problems with the experiments, ethically and otherwise, but they are valuable jumping off points. we understand how conformity, authority, and group processes work a lot better now after bodies of research it inspired. calling it useless is very weird to me. it was also replicated more ethically with studies like burger (2009). there also used to be a critique of milgram's two famous experiments that the 60s american culture bred the conformity that led to the results but later studies addressed this with contemporary polish samples, for ex.The "banality of evil" is the most laughable philosophical theory ever created (probably to cover up the reputation of her lover Heidegger...) for the Nazis in charge of the Final Solution were anything but ordinary people. How could an ordinary mind seriously think about implementing such a grotesque and inhumane plan? Studies have showed that most soldiers only reluctantly shoot at the enemy, so how would a normal person decide to carry a mass slaughter that would last for years? This theory is just shallow, and the Milgram Experiment is useless, for we have real-life data in a military context where the authority is considerably more threatening and the consequences of disobedience possibly catastrophic (severe corporal punishment or death). i dont disagree about there being unusual individuals who led, it's a problem i have with that recent film zone of interest. it's a great film for challenging the idea of looking at the past as a set of dead facts (very walter benjamin-esque idea), but it presents höss as a relatable individual when he was honestly the poster child for psychopathy. the film is also responsible for the contemporary normalization for the "banality of evil" phrase, i think, bc every critic repeated it and so did every fan review, which is unfortunate. but "unusual" individuals, even exceptionally awful ones, have etiologies we can and should examine so that we can enact early prevention. and groups tend to work in weirdly influential ways. that's the whole motivation for large parts of research in social psych, btw. jewish psychologists who had every motivation to discount external factors and blame some unknowable intrinsic property stood above that desire and worked towards empirical research so that we could prevent this sort of thing from happening. the best way to repeat atrocity is to distance yourself from it. also the opinion piece you linked to that references the research you are citing says the opposite of what you are intending, saying that we've gotten much better at forcing that conformity over time lol the speculation on arendt's relational motivation is a bit off in the timeline too for various reasons, but its a cute joke ig Not really. A more ranked officer is typically present in every military unit, and during WWI, soldiers were forced to follow the assault, although they would typically not even shoot at the enemy (or have the chance to do so). Not just "unusual" but large variations. A lot of them were exceptional in the etymological sense (removing every moral aspects from the equation: "Gandhi himself knew full well. Setting aside all moral judgements, one might say that he and Hitler have been amongst the greatest publicity agents of all time." André Weil). Half of the high Nazi officials were on drugs, and the rest were fanatics. I have not watched the movie, but I have read a few reviews of it. However, it does seem much worse than the interesting explorations of the sexual aspects of Nazism (or fascism as in Pasolini's masterpiece—not even mentioned in the BBC article linked below) in second-rate movies such as The Night Porter. To me, "Nazi chic" is a non-issue since people who would want to make Nazis appear as complete monsters devoid of any normal human feelings are also missing the point. A monster could be a good father, be good to his children, like to pet animals, and even be a vegetarian out of his love for the animals... But as it is said in the Bible, even men of evil are good to the ones they love, so it does not show anything. However, making a movie entirely on the domestic aspect is also missing the bigger picture, so I do not see the point of such movies. Prevention is another completely different topic, and I highly doubt that it has ever been considered as a serious goal since no large-scale tests of neurodivergence are performed in the Western countries. It is obviously very interesting to study the characters of historical figures, be they geniuses or monsters, but the clinical aspect will always be reductive (just look at the kind of nonsense published on Dostoevsky) and miss the richness of a literary analysis (as the one of Napoléon by Chateaubriand). "Discount the external factors." Obviously, if Hitler had not lost his father so young and had been raised by a wealthy family, he would never have become the most hated person who has ever lived... The situation is not that complicated, the destiny of a man is made of special circumstances united to a specific character. You cannot remove a man from his milieu to conduct "scientific experiments" (that only borrow to science its name). It does not actually. It only shows that you can brainwash people into killing soldiers, and that unless the situation is as desperate as Vietnam, you will not even manage to have half of soldiers do their job. Not that it comes naturally to people to commit atrocities. By the way, this aspect had been taken into account by the ones who planned the Holocaust (since the Sonderkommandos were the ones doing the most traumatising work). You should know that I never joke, and I would be really curious to hear the said "various reasons" (that you will never be able to state)... The "banality of evil" remains to this day the most preposterous philosophical theories ever thought of. It is simply orthogonal to reality. Instead of losing one's time studying fourth-rate philosophers, one should rather read the love letters Heidegger sent to his mistresses. |
MeusnierMay 10, 2:15 PM
| Generally speaking, I'm surrounded by ethical authoritative figures so I tend to be obedient. But I'm constantly questioning authority and weighing the morality behind my actions, so I'd like to believe I wouldn't fit into the results of those experiments. I pay my taxes, but I will march in the streets kinda thing... |
DRINK SOME WATER! FOOL!!! |
| The innate sense to obey and conform, societal peer pressures, corrupt and immoral authorities trickling down, affecting the rest... The occasional sheep, sociopaths, and psychopaths in all of that. I guess there's some truths and flaws to the banality of evil and the Milgram experiment. |
  |
Reply to AdamBirch
๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ, ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ, ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ, ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ, ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ, ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐, ๐ข๐ญ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ.
| @AdamBirch that is true...it is all just PsyOps... |
Reply to DesuMaiden
@deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.
deg said: @DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more DesuMaiden said: @deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.  Economic illiteracy on both sides. The government does not create wealth, nor does imperialism. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
@DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
DesuMaiden said:
@deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.
@deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.
Economic illiteracy on both sides. The government does not create wealth, nor does imperialism.
| @DreamWindow you are dumb...NTHE will happen...and nobody wiil survive it |
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
@DesuMaiden lol if you do not have at least a good enough government then your country will become poor too
anyway youre clearly going with conspiracy theories and anti government beliefs so im not gonna bother more
DesuMaiden said:
@deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.
@deg no,the "wealth" of nations has absolutely nothing to do with "good" governments...the "wealthy" countries all depend on extorting and stealing other country's wealth via military domination. Not that it matters because when NTHE arrives, no humans will be spared.
Economic illiteracy on both sides. The government does not create wealth, nor does imperialism.
| @DreamWindow reminder to everyone that youre a lolbertarian so youre antigovernment inb4 you call me authoritarian because i support a clean and good government also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-up_economics |
degMay 12, 12:04 AM
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow reminder to everyone that youre a lolbertarian so youre antigovernment
inb4 you call me authoritarian because i support a clean and good government
also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-up_economics
inb4 you call me authoritarian because i support a clean and good government
also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-up_economics
| @deg The fact that you point out a wiki article on "trickle up economics" just furthers my point. There is no such as "trickle up" or "trickle down" economics. You've been captivated by a catchphrase invented by the media. I'd recommend reading this essay. It's only 13 pages. http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf Cool man, thanks for letting me know. |
DreamWindowMay 12, 11:37 AM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
The fact that you point out a wiki article on "trickle up economics" just furthers my point. There is no such as "trickle up" or "trickle down" economics. You've been captivated by a catchphrase invented by the media.
I'd recommend reading this essay. It's only 13 pages.
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
Cool man, thanks for letting me know.
The fact that you point out a wiki article on "trickle up economics" just furthers my point. There is no such as "trickle up" or "trickle down" economics. You've been captivated by a catchphrase invented by the media.
I'd recommend reading this essay. It's only 13 pages.
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
Cool man, thanks for letting me know.
| @DreamWindow no its labels invented by politicians and it works by simplifying their economic policies |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow no its labels invented by politicians and it works by simplifying their economic policies
| @deg The labels mean nothing if they don't properly explain what is really happening. What actually followed the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s were rising output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the rising incomes, even though the tax rates had been lowered. Another consequence was that people in higher income brackets not only paid a larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after what have been called “tax cuts for the rich.” There were somewhat similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.9 After the 1920s tax cuts, it was not simply that investors’ incomes rose but that this was now taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable for investors to get higher returns by investing outside of tax shelters. This is economic growth. But anyone in opposition can simply say that anyone who chooses to favour this outcome is "advocating for tax cuts for the rich" or "trickle down economics" then all thinking ceases, because the term means nothing. If you fail to look past the catch phrases, and understand what they are really advocating for, it will be easier to understand what politics really is. In many cases, it's a show. These labels serve nothing more than easy ways to manipulate the public into voting a certain way, without having to really think about how things really work. |
DreamWindowMay 12, 12:03 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
The labels mean nothing if they don't properly explain what is really happening.
This is economic growth. But anyone in opposition can simply say that anyone who chooses to favour this outcome is "advocating for tax cuts for the rich" or "trickle down economics" then all thinking ceases, because the term means nothing. If you fail to look past the catch phrases, and understand what they are really advocating for, it will be easier to understand what politics really is. In many cases, it's a show.
These labels serve nothing more than easy ways to manipulate the public into voting a certain way, without having to really think about how things really work.
The labels mean nothing if they don't properly explain what is really happening.
What actually followed the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s were rising
output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a
result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the
rising incomes, even though the tax rates had been lowered. Another
consequence was that people in higher income brackets not only paid a
larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after
what have been called “tax cuts for the rich.” There were somewhat
similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John
F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.9 After
the 1920s tax cuts, it was not simply that investors’ incomes rose but that
this was now taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable
for investors to get higher returns by investing outside of tax shelters.
output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a
result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the
rising incomes, even though the tax rates had been lowered. Another
consequence was that people in higher income brackets not only paid a
larger total amount of taxes, but a higher percentage of all taxes, after
what have been called “tax cuts for the rich.” There were somewhat
similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John
F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.9 After
the 1920s tax cuts, it was not simply that investors’ incomes rose but that
this was now taxable income, since the lower tax rates made it profitable
for investors to get higher returns by investing outside of tax shelters.
This is economic growth. But anyone in opposition can simply say that anyone who chooses to favour this outcome is "advocating for tax cuts for the rich" or "trickle down economics" then all thinking ceases, because the term means nothing. If you fail to look past the catch phrases, and understand what they are really advocating for, it will be easier to understand what politics really is. In many cases, it's a show.
These labels serve nothing more than easy ways to manipulate the public into voting a certain way, without having to really think about how things really work.
| @DreamWindow raeganomics is a scam https://qz.com/429487/a-new-imf-study-debunks-trickle-down-economics trickle down economics is why we have problematic income and wealth inequality today A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12 |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow raeganomics is a scam https://qz.com/429487/a-new-imf-study-debunks-trickle-down-economics
trickle down economics is why we have problematic income and wealth inequality today
A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12
trickle down economics is why we have problematic income and wealth inequality today
A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12
| @deg First, I would like to ask a question. Did you read the essay I linked to you? I think it is important context that you will be missing, otherwise. The article you cited is largely vague, only citing "trickle down economics" once again, which as I have said before is a mythical obfuscation of real terms used by economists, and detracts from any actual understanding of the economic policies that are even being discussed. What is it about Reaganomics, in particular, is "trickle down"? Furthermore, your views tend to contradict each other. You advocate for degrowth, yet you want to increase the standard of living for the poor? You can't do that, unless you have an increase of economic output. Everything I have read from you is incoherent. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
First, I would like to ask a question. Did you read the essay I linked to you? I think it is important context that you will be missing, otherwise.
The article you cited is largely vague, only citing "trickle down economics" once again, which as I have said before is a mythical obfuscation of real terms used by economists, and detracts from any actual understanding of the economic policies that are even being discussed. What is it about Reaganomics, in particular, is "trickle down"?
Furthermore, your views tend to contradict each other. You advocate for degrowth, yet you want to increase the standard of living for the poor? You can't do that, unless you have an increase of economic output. Everything I have read from you is incoherent.
First, I would like to ask a question. Did you read the essay I linked to you? I think it is important context that you will be missing, otherwise.
The article you cited is largely vague, only citing "trickle down economics" once again, which as I have said before is a mythical obfuscation of real terms used by economists, and detracts from any actual understanding of the economic policies that are even being discussed. What is it about Reaganomics, in particular, is "trickle down"?
Furthermore, your views tend to contradict each other. You advocate for degrowth, yet you want to increase the standard of living for the poor? You can't do that, unless you have an increase of economic output. Everything I have read from you is incoherent.
| @DreamWindow degrowth is simply green economy a sustainable economy with inclusive growth you simply think literally about the word degrowth and thinks everybody should be poor when that is not the case is everybody in rich europe countries poor? no but they do better mix economy of social capitalism there and that is close to green economy with focus on green energy and no i did not read your link file since i already know its mainstream economics stuff that is debunk by new studies like the businessinsider link i provided and even imf agrees that trickle down economics is wrong |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow degrowth is simply green economy a sustainable economy with inclusive growth
you simply think literally about the word degrowth and thinks everybody should be poor when that is not the case is everybody in rich europe countries poor? no but they do better mix economy of social capitalism there and that is close to green economy with focus on green energy
and no i did not read your link file since i already know its mainstream economics stuff that is debunk by new studies like the businessinsider link i provided and even imf agrees that trickle down economics is wrong
you simply think literally about the word degrowth and thinks everybody should be poor when that is not the case is everybody in rich europe countries poor? no but they do better mix economy of social capitalism there and that is close to green economy with focus on green energy
and no i did not read your link file since i already know its mainstream economics stuff that is debunk by new studies like the businessinsider link i provided and even imf agrees that trickle down economics is wrong
| @deg and no i did not read your link file since i already know its mainstream economics stuff that is debunk by new studies like the businessinsider link i provided and even imf agrees that trickle down economics is wrong Alright, then you are proving to me that you are irrational, and choose to accept sensational media claims over actual economic analysis. I have no reason to further discuss anything with you. There is simply no way to reason with someone who is blissful in their own ignorance. Have a good day. |
DreamWindowMay 12, 12:24 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
Alright, then you are proving to me that you are irrational, and choose to accept sensational media claims over actual economic analysis. I have no reason to further discuss anything with you. There is simply no way to reason with someone who is blissful in their own ignorance. Have a good day.
and no i did not read your link file since i already know its mainstream economics stuff that is debunk by new studies like the businessinsider link i provided and even imf agrees that trickle down economics is wrong
Alright, then you are proving to me that you are irrational, and choose to accept sensational media claims over actual economic analysis. I have no reason to further discuss anything with you. There is simply no way to reason with someone who is blissful in their own ignorance. Have a good day.
| @DreamWindow lol they link economists and the imf here so they are not just clickbaits and sure its better if you never talk to me ever again too if you think im irrational |
| As a side note, I think that atheists are evil people. Only an evil person would deny that God exists. Look at those serial killers and pedophiles...they are usually atheists...because someone must deny God to commit such heinous crimes. |
| Sitting here chilling and fighting the banality of chaos with the Omnissiah. |
SoverignMay 12, 2:06 PM
 |
| I am not an evil person..I believe in God...only a fool would not believe in God... |
| People at an early age are taught to obey authority figures without question or resistance. So of course this primes them later in life to continue the same behaviour. Pair this with the Standford Prison Experiment and you see how people easily fall into roles from their associations they make. |
Reply to traed
People at an early age are taught to obey authority figures without question or resistance. So of course this primes them later in life to continue the same behaviour. Pair this with the Standford Prison Experiment and you see how people easily fall into roles from their associations they make.
| @traed yeah they would be good tools for the governments lol... |
Reply to traed
People at an early age are taught to obey authority figures without question or resistance. So of course this primes them later in life to continue the same behaviour. Pair this with the Standford Prison Experiment and you see how people easily fall into roles from their associations they make.
| @traed This is the purpose of compulsory education. To create good little obedient bees who keep their head down, work for nothing and never think outside the box. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@traed This is the purpose of compulsory education. To create good little obedient bees who keep their head down, work for nothing and never think outside the box.
| @DreamWindow It not being compulsory wouldn't change that, even though I do think education should focus on making students want to go rather than forcing them. Problem is parents are still a major factor where some try to isolate or otherwise keep out knowledge from their child from what they would need to be able to have their own opinions and be able to stand up against an authority figure when they are in the wrong. |
| One does not simply trust the government lol...that is OBVIOUS lol... |
Reply to traed
@DreamWindow
It not being compulsory wouldn't change that, even though I do think education should focus on making students want to go rather than forcing them. Problem is parents are still a major factor where some try to isolate or otherwise keep out knowledge from their child from what they would need to be able to have their own opinions and be able to stand up against an authority figure when they are in the wrong.
It not being compulsory wouldn't change that, even though I do think education should focus on making students want to go rather than forcing them. Problem is parents are still a major factor where some try to isolate or otherwise keep out knowledge from their child from what they would need to be able to have their own opinions and be able to stand up against an authority figure when they are in the wrong.
| @traed Yes, it absolutely is because of compulsory education that makes the institution so hostile. There's no reason to expect that a state monopoly on education has any incentive to actually care about the children, let alone allow them to think independently of the curriculum. They get paid the same, either way. In the absence of the state's monopoly on education, there would be far less reason to believe that authority could reign over the minds of the population, since there is no centralized power controlling the curriculum. Instead of churning out obedient future tax payers, education will be prioritized, since there is always the possibility that if the service fails to deliver adequate service, the parents can go somewhere else. And no, the parents are absolutely not at fault here. There is nothing wrong with parents trying to choose what the best kind of education is for their child. Parents have every right to opt out if they so choose, it should not be any other way. The fact that there are no alternatives right now, and that education is mandatory is utterly against the freedom of choice for both the student and the parent. If education is treated as an actual boon, and the school board no longer believe that they know better than the parents, then there is real freedom of education. |
DreamWindowMay 13, 4:18 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| And we all know that the fbi are secretly running every criminal syndicate. From pornography, drugs, weapons, terrorism, etc the government agencies are behind it. |
๐ ๐ฌ๐ธ๐ท๐ฌ๐พ๐ป, ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ป๐ผ๐ฝ ๐๐ผ๐๐๐น. |
|
| I think like a disobedient edgelord but when push comes to shove I think I’m actually pretty heavily socialized. |
More topics from this board
» What does your username mean? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
56 |
by zzz
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Are video games a waste of time and money?? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - May 27 |
83 |
by WaffleMaster89
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» What if you saw God in heaven? ( 1 2 )-Usagi - Feb 3, 2016 |
76 |
by WaffleMaster89
»»
54 minutes ago |
|
» do you eat to live or live to eat?707supremacist - May 4 |
29 |
by traed
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» it's the weekend and my brains are really fried right nowtsukareru - May 25 |
36 |
by tsukareru
»»
3 hours ago |