

Some Things That You Really Can't Say - cantsay2

I'm disappointed with the articles that attempt to say things that cannot be said.  I read them and was not angry.  Hopefully some of these will really anger people.<p>- The ambitious greed of Wall Street keeps everyone else from true success.  The .com bubble was Wall Street paying off a handful of us for the opportunity to skim fees off of the irrational investment of the world's money (same as any financial bubble).  Other successful sectors have often taken funding that will ultimately send the returns back to Wall Street.<p>- Relatedly, successful public companies are bad for society.  They are always bound to delivering the greatest possible profit, and rarely held to any standards of ethical behavior.  The best you can do for society is to create a successful non-profit.<p>- There is no solid evidence that 9/11 happened like we are told.  Any discussion around this fact devolves to name calling and ridicule.<p>- People who join the (US) military are making the world a more dangerous place.  We have no natural enemies; they are creating a solution looking for a problem.<p>- Ad sponsored media's primary function is to force you to pay attention.  They trend towards accomplishing this with fear and social exploitation (shiny, sexy things) because these play to your un-ignorable biological reflexes.  Google has so far avoided much of this, but those ads are getting bigger and flashier...<p>- And most amazingly: it is okay to be wrong.  To attack someone for not believing that we landed on the moon, or in the Holocaust, is actually selfish.  If you are so concerned, the correct recourse is to present convincing evidence.
======
bhousel
I think that the "stuff you can't say" idea is more about opinions.
Specifically, opinions that are so crazy and _unpopular_ that you'd be branded
a heretic for even suggesting them -- opinions that you couldn't even espouse
on the craziest talk show on TV.

It's not about facts (which are provably right or wrong). So saying, "9/11
didn't happen like we were told" is questioning the facts -- really not a
stuff-you-can't-say kind of statement.

Reading through the list, I didn't find any of those statements particularly
controversial. I hear people say that stuff all the time, and I suspect that
if you were to shout those things on a street corner in a large city, you'd
probably attract at least some crowd of people who'd agree with you, or at the
very least, grant you an interview.

So, let me make an attempt revise your statements and try to turn them into
actual "stuff you can't say":

Old: "The ambitious greed of Wall Street keeps everyone else from true
success..."

Better: _"Some people will never be successful no matter how much money you
invest in them. Better to just test everyone early on for intelligence and let
that determine who gets to be rich."_

Old: "Successful public companies are bad for society. They are always bound
to delivering the greatest possible profit, and rarely held to any standards
of ethical behavior..."

Better: _"Why do we need personal and professional ethics anymore when we can
just legislate everything? Let's eliminate accountability completely and have
professional judges decide right from wrong based on a strict set of codes
designed to cover all situations."_

Old: "There is no solid evidence that 9/11 happened like we are told..."

Better: _"9/11 really wasn't a big deal. As a nation we should accept those
few thousand deaths as a rounding error when compared to the many more people
die of accidents and preventable illness."_

Old: "People who join the (US) military are making the world a more dangerous
place..."

Better: _"The world would be better if it were under the rule of a single
world government. The idea of a military would disappear, as it would then be
irrelevant."_

Old: "Ad sponsored media's primary function is to force you to pay attention.
They trend towards accomplishing this with fear and social exploitation
(shiny, sexy things) because these play to your un-ignorable biological
reflexes..."

Better: _"Advertising that manipulates people on a subconscious level should
be illegal. We should regulate the advertising industry by requiring every
product description to appear in a standard format (black Helvetica text on
white background). We should require government approval before any product
can be sold in stores."_

Old: "And most amazingly: it is okay to be wrong. To attack someone for not
believing that we landed on the moon, or in the Holocaust, is actually
selfish.."

Better: _"From now on we should use the Wikipedia as the final say in what is
considered factual and right. Anyone caught vandalizing or defacing the
Wikipedia should be punished by death, as crimes against truth are more
serious than crimes against man."_

------
iterationx
Most people leave their thinking to the so-called domain experts and ridicule
any contrary arguments. It's Pavlovian. Mostly because the humans are pack
animals / tribal and we look to the pack leader / chief. Bernays book
Propaganda might be review for you but its short and it drives home the point.
Relevant quote:

Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible
government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our
minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we
have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate
in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business
in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the
relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and
social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the
public mind.

~~~
Travis
One other way of looking at it is more of what Cialdini describes in "the
psychology of influence". Basically, the world around us is too complex for
our biological brains to really grasp, so we look for short cuts to get us
through the day. One of those shortcuts is deferring to apparent authority.
Same results (looking to others for answers), but a little more based on
evolutionary bio / psychology as opposed to a "people as sheep" POV.

------
foldr
>To attack someone for not believing that we landed on the moon, or in the
Holocaust, is actually selfish. If you are so concerned, the correct recourse
is to present convincing evidence.

People who deny the Holocaust aren't likely to be persuaded by convincing
evidence, or they wouldn't be denying it in the first place.

------
BobNeumann
I think you struck out....I strenuously disagree with every single point you
listed...but did it anger me? Are you kidding? You sound like such a lunatic,
I couldn't help but chuckle as I read them....

Sorry to rain on your parade...

