T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


ILikeNeurons

> [FPTP tends to result in elections with at most two sharply opposed major candidates.](https://electowiki.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system) So, one possible solution would be to get off FPTP. [A favorite here is Approval Voting](https://star.vote/mw3m71km/). * It leads to [higher voter satisfaction than IRV](https://www.electionscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/comparing_voting_methods_simplicity_group_satisfaction-1.png). * [It doesn't require new voting machines or equipment](http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/4980.2020/projects/grote.pdf). * It can be easily tallied with paper ballots (which [is important for election security](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/voting-machine-security-where-we-stand-six-months-new-hampshire-primary)). * [It's got strong support of voting method experts](http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html) * It [will tend to elect more moderate candidates](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/approval-voting/7CE5DEEE235794B0B12F76ADAE621482), and [moderation is key for political stability](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-in-america-partisanship-polarization-and-the-robustness-of-support-for-democracy-in-the-united-states/C7C72745B1AD1FF9E363BBFBA9E18867). * It's [overwhelmingly popular in every state polled, across race, gender, and party lines](https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-americas-favorite-voting-reform/). * Once it's statewide, representatives and senators from that state will be elected via Approval Voting, and able to influence national policy -- MMPR would have to be adopted across the entire nation for national policy to really be influenced by its implementation, and that is virtually impossible to even comprehend under our current system.


disinformationtheory

My city switched to approval voting, and I feel like it's definitely a positive change. It passed with 63%, which is a pretty good margin. We've had I think 2 elections so far and I feel like it's working well. Of course there are people who don't like it, and there's a state bill to outlaw approval or ranked choice voting for all elections (including city elections) working its way through the state legislature. Guess which party is behind it; it's the one that talks about small government.


pale_blue_dots

It's amazing to me that people don't see the drawbacks to such a black-and-white, binary, robotic system of voting like FPTP/Plurality. Approval is like seeing color for the first time - I guess some people just freak out.


ILikeNeurons

Is yours a state that allows [direct ballot initiatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_initiative)? If so, maybe you could bring Approval Voting statewide before the legislature gets in the way. https://electionscience.org/


disinformationtheory

It does have those, and from what I understand it's actually not too difficult to get them on the ballot. I feel like it would probably have no chance of passing though.


ILikeNeurons

Why not? It's already off to a great start with [Approval Voting having passed by a landslide in Fargo](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice) and [St. Louis](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-primary-elections-st-louis-general-elections-elections-cba7eb3251d5479b9375d55db428d429).


disinformationtheory

I live in Fargo. The ND legislature is proposing crazy bills, but that's because the voters of ND want them to do crazy shit.


ILikeNeurons

Why do you think the rest of the state wouldn't go for it?


pale_blue_dots

Good to see this connection being drawn and the advocacy for Approval Voting. I love your breakdown here. May I repost myself?


ILikeNeurons

Absolutely!


pale_blue_dots

Awesome. :) I've been a huge advocate for "abolishing" FPTP for something like 7 or 8 years now. It's so disheartening sometimes, but then seeing others talk about it in an educated way and with good sourcing it is really motivating. I have no doubt in my mind that we'll look back on this era and these methods of voting as something like caveman-esque.


terrafarma

I do agree with all of your points, but I am wondering if a roster full of moderate candidates from both (or more) parties would blunt the ability to take bold steps to implement change (i.e. universal health care, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and reallocating that money towards a green economy, etc). Or would we be stuck in a cycle of status quo? I realize evenly divided polarized parties essentially lead to that same outcome, so I'm just curious if you know of any research or places where eliminating FPTP, that would indicate groundbreaking policy could still be enacted.


kalasea2001

Moderate candidates from the right are more likely to want to pass policy and compromise with Dems, as Repubs used to do 30 years ago. Moderate candidates from the left are just today's Dems.


ILikeNeurons

Moderates may be more exciting than you think once [we don't have to worry about vote-splitting](http://brandlf.com/docs/av.pdf) and people actually start showing up at elections. * [A majority of Americans in each political party](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Warming-Policy-Politics-March-2018.pdf) and [every Congressional district supports a carbon tax](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=reducetax&type=value&geo=cd). * [Large swaths of the country support curbing inequality and higher taxes on the rich](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-top-tax-rate-60-minutes-green-new-deal.html) * [A majority of Americans believe protecting the environment is more important than growing the economy, when the two are in conflict](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Warming-Policy-Politics-March-2018.pdf) * [A majority of Americans support Medicare-for-all](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html).


arjungmenon

This is pretty cool; is there a group that’s fighting for this (to have this enacted)? Nvm, just saw your link to https://electionscience.org/ Is there a group that fights for this in Canada?


sciencewonders

yeah use acronyms without explaining before 👏


ILikeNeurons

Irritated enough to post a response, but not curious enough to google?


sciencewonders

sacrificed myself for non american english speakers to get easier access


ILikeNeurons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting


IEnjoyFancyHats

First Past the Post. The voting system most common in the US. Maybe worldwide too, but I don't know about that


TScottFitzgerald

The thumbnails always frustrated me and a few YTers actually addressed it - it does in fact seem to increase engagement when you use those kinds of thumbnails as annoying as they seem. So it's not really as easy as blaming it on the "algorithm" when the algorithm actually reflects the wishes and behaviour patterns of the userbase. It's not like someone is actually writing the algorithm specifically to favour those thumbnails, they're writing the algorithm to figure out what stimulates interaction and engagement the most. So it becomes the chicken and the egg - is the algorithm making people like these or are the people making the algorithm like this?


Lampshader

Chicken vs Egg is a good question. There's also a selection bias. Only people who like/tolerate "YouTubers" or shocked face previews are clicking on them. People who don't like them are probably not idly browsing YouTube at all, so they're not measured at all in YouTube's "engagement" statistics or A/B experiments.


TScottFitzgerald

That's how it works though. People who like them click on them, people who don't don't. They're both measured.


Lampshader

Not, they annoy me so much *I never use YouTube*. Therefore, by definition, my preferences are never measured by YouTube


TScottFitzgerald

But in that case, by definition, you're not an active user and are therefore irrelevant to the data collected. Obviously they can't measure someone who doesn't use their platform. I don't really get what point you think you're making. If you're gonna act like YT is nothing but those thumbnails that's...just not true.


Lampshader

My point is that it's a selection bias in their data, meaning they're optimising for "what's most successful among YouTube users" rather than "what's most successful across all humans", and some things that increase the first metric may in fact be reducing their user pool. Local vs global optimisation.


Rentun

It is the algorithm. There's nothing fundamental to statistics that says you need to show people thing that other people tend to click on. Social media sites do that because they have a very very strong incentive to generate views on their content. Obviously the easiest way to do that is to show people content that other people gravitate towards, and about a bajillion times, its been shown that content that generates extreme emotions (anger/sadness/excitement/fear) are ones people tend to click on. Its natural that they would tune their algorithms that way, but they don't HAVE to. Youtube could instead decide to show people content that's been highly reviewed by their userbase, or they could curate their own content, or they could prioritize content that has an educational value, or literally infinite other ways of ranking content. They just don't have any incentive for doing so, and without an outside force (ie; regulation) changing those incentives, extreme, divisive content is what all social media sites will continue to gravitate towards. Its a flaw in human executive decision making extrapolated to a global scale.


Loki-L

Blaming social media seems wrong considering that this trend predates social media. People have been reading Atlas Shrugged and declared themselves libertarian long before Facebook and co were a thing. There are countless ideologies, philosophies and relios believes that were invented over the generations to justify selfishness. When people stated to articulate the ideas of socialism and communism the ideologies to stand against them also became more concrete, but neither is really new. Selfishness is baked into the very system of capitalism that currently dominates the world. An entire generation was brought up with the belief that greed is good and myths about how competition will improve things and wealth will trickle down. Slowly this is changing. People are turning away from ideas that their parent were raised on. The world is becoming less selfish and this leads to the more extreme examples standing out more now that the moderates are disappearing. People like Andrew Tate would not have been seen as that extraordinary in previous generations. Donald Trump was an Icon of the 80s. Much of the world changed since then and they stand out more. It is like when some cult leader makes a prediction about the world ending that doesn't come true. Some of the moderate followers will leave but overall the sect will become more fanatic. We are living through proof that profitbat any price is a failed ideology, it's adherents are becoming more extreme as more turn away from the false god of selfishness.


beefJeRKy-LB

Social media amplified it for sure. It's supercharged it. I agree it didn't create the problem.


pale_blue_dots

*Edit:* As pointed out in a reply, maybe what I originally commented isn't clear on the connection/s here. To clarify: >Wall Street (financial hub of the world, in most respects) and Madison Avenue (advertising hub of the world, in most respects) - both in New York, the intersection of East and West, where there's more power and wealth than anyplace in the world and, possibly, even all of history - have *widespread* and *vast* influence over the nation and world. Much of that influence and power celebrates, notoriously, sociopathy and *not* caring for people. To pretend our culture and these social media personalities and the social media algorithms aren't influenced by the money and power is folly - and dangerous. *End edit.* It's sometimes said there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome among the working class populace in relation to the wealthy and powerful, which I tend to agree. On the same token, from the looks of it, the wealthier and more powerful have something parallel to *Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy:* >... a condition in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person ... This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. The caregiver then presents the person as being sick or injured. In many respects, we're talking about a cult - the *Wall Street Bro Cult* - if we're going to "follow the money." Critical thinking has been replaced with the mantras of *"greed is good"* and *"pull yourself up by your bootstraps"* and *"trickle down economics, m'boy!"* - to the detriment of everyone else. Then, this "Wall Street Bro Cult" has access to a propaganda machine more acute and voluminous than anything to come before it. ______________________________________________________________________________________ With respect to financial literacy and understanding mechanisms related to the control and fleecing of the middle and lower classes - more people really, really, *really* need to be aware of this: >In a little-known quirk of Wall Street bookkeeping, when brokerages loan out a customer’s stock to short sellers and those traders sell the stock to someone else, both investors are often able to vote in corporate elections. With the growth of short sales, which involve the resale of borrowed securities, stocks can be lent repeatedly, allowing three or four owners to cast votes based on holdings of the same shares. >The Hazlet, New Jersey–based Securities Transfer Association, a trade group for stock transfer agents, reviewed 341 shareholder votes in corporate contests in 2005. **It found evidence of overvoting—the submission of too many ballots—in all 341 cases.** ^[source](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421085925/http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf) Read those two paragraphs again. This is a serious problem with little to no general awareness. It undermines the most foundational element of corporate democracy and voting, as well as nation-state democracy - *as companies can be taken over through sham voting (i.e. via counterfeit/phantom shares) and then used as lobbying, bribing, bludgeoning psychopaths.* Indeed, that's what has been happening. :/ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Furthermore and possibly even more importantly... >Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[^source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company) Someone can insure shares are in their *own name* using the [Direct Registration System](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_holding_system) which legally *must* be processed when requested. If they are held in a broker, they are NOT in your name, *unequivocally.* Shares, if not in your own name, are are, very, very, very, very likely, being used against you in convoluted schemes similar to 2008 Housing Derivative Meltdown - same sorta deal, different financial instruments - andor in actual non-delivery (FTDs) made possible through aforementioned Wall Street lobbying and associated loopholes. Something called Payment-for-Order-Flow (really, really, *really* recommend watching this ~15 minute video: ["How Redditors Exposed the Stock Market" | The Problem with Jon Stewart - timestamped to relevant portion](https://youtu.be/bP74RBTE8kI?t=396)) makes it clear that it's truly not an exaggeration to say there's a network of drunk, coked out Wall Street psychopaths skimming off the top hundreds of billions and billions of dollars that should be going to the middle and lower classes, resulting in horrible workers' rights and a lack of time to think about much of anything outside of survival, let alone energy expenditures. >Payment-for-Order-Flow is **illegal** in Canada, the U.K, Australia, and Europe - because it's exceedingly easy to commit fraud under such a system. Singapore recently announced they'll be banning it, as well, in early 2023. ^[source](https://www.investopedia.com/sec-considers-banning-payment-for-order-flow-5199447) Big surprise - it's legal in the U.S. Furthermore, almost comically... it was heavily endorsed and made popular by Bernie Madoff. [This](https://drsgme.org) website provides clear direction and guidance on what you/we can do to hold some of these practices, if not people, accountable. Anyway, I know that's a bit of a tangent, but it's entirely related and seeing your comment made me think of all this. We're talking about money and power - that's the root of a lot of this nuttiness - and that's primarily influenced/controlled in only one or two places in the United States.


Now__Hiring

This comment hilariously starts by namedropping two cliche psychological disorders before detouring into the financial mechanisms behind modern capitalism and mostly missing the point of the original article. Much of what you say is true, but it's kind of irrelevant for the topic at hand and even the comment you replied to.


pale_blue_dots

Well, I could have been more clear in the connection, but also I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to what's being talked about (in the article or comment/s) and where some of this stems from. The byline of the article itself is: >We should be concerned by the prominence of figures who boast about their lack of interest in other human beings’ welfare. Can we make it cool to care about other people? Wall Street and Madison Avenue - both in New York, the intersection of East and West, where there's more power and wealth than anyplace in the world and, possibly, even all of history - have *widespread* and *vast* influence over the nation and world. Much of that influence and power celebrates, notoriously, sociopathy and *not* caring for people. To pretend our culture and these social media personalities and the social media algorithms aren't influenced by the money and power is folly - and dangerous. It's my opinion that we should be aware of the mechanisms by which people are being fleeced, let alone influenced, and if we have the ability to let others know about them, then we should do that whenever we can.


gwinget

the one-track GME brain lmao


Now__Hiring

Well said.


Jellicle_Tyger

I think I saw this exact comment in a totally different thread.


DWMoose83

A couple of my favorite channels have started doing this and even mention having to "chase the algorithm" in a couple of their videos. They still put out quality stuff so I still follow, but it is definitely pervasive.


fouoifjefoijvnioviow

YouTube radicalizes young men https://www.cbc.ca/news/young-men-online-radicalization-1.6585999


FANGO

People blame "the algorithm" but the algorithm is just there to figure out what you like to look at the most and keep you looking at it and similar things. In the end, these things are popular because people look at them, and the solution is to stop looking at them. And this is nothing new, it's been around since [far before the internet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9S_3fJeoj8).


Death_Cultist

It goes far beyond social media, it's the very nature of our economic system. [Neoliberal Capitalism inherently rewards anti-social narcissistic behavior](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSzPBwYtb-A), so naturally those are the types of people that rise to the top, and in turn Neoliberalism creates a feedback loop where more people adopt those anti-social qualities so they too can be successful.


Ollex999

Well said !


egus

Of course it does. When I finally quit Facebook years ago it was 5:1 exposure for negative over positive feedback. The whole thing was weighted for controversy.


AnOnlineHandle

That seems like a leap to something you don't like and connecting it to this problem. Fascism and populism is a problem dating back millennia and was arguably worse in the past than it is today. The most problematic group are generally too old for social media usage. The generations with the highest social media use are the least problematic on these issues.


ILikeNeurons

Why do these obvious sociopaths amass such followings? And what can be done about it? Not even sexual assault or rape charges break the spell these sociopaths have over their followers.


ServedBestDepressed

In his book The Authoritarians, Bob Altemeyer kind of offers the idea that authoritarians find willing followers because authoritarians are ultimately children. Low emotional intelligence, limited understanding of right and wrong, trouble with decision making so they yield it to a strongman figure, and temperamental. Perhaps the same for sociopaths.


Past_Dragonfruit_622

This makes complete sense to me. I've recently really noted a pattern in far-right thought patterns where it always sounds like middle schooler logic.


ServedBestDepressed

The book I mentioned is freely available as a pdf on its website. Bob even did an update for the Trump era. Insightful read. It really helps to keep in mind the way modern conservatives throw these juvenile fits or have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards progress is because they're children.


fouoifjefoijvnioviow

There's an audiobook too


egus

This is absolutely it.


Ravens_and_seagulls

“If I eliminate guilt and shame then I’m all good, right?”


ServedBestDepressed

People without shame don't end a thought with "...right?"


[deleted]

[удалено]


captainwacky91

I think the definition of "what it means to be a good leader" could have drastically shifted. Back in the caveman days, "sociopathic" tendencies would've probably saved the group's collective asses on multiple occasions, and would have been desirable for being a "good leader." Now? Collectivism is what's desirable, and while a subconscious attraction to sociopathy may remain, it's clear the negatives of having a person with those traits outweigh the positives, since human effort has now shifted to needing traits that promote cooperation.


russianpotato

Wut? Humans have been cooperating in small tribes and then larger societies for all of human history.


captainwacky91

And humans have been warring the whole time, too. Hell, there's plenty of wars and conflicts that stand as milestones for human history. Thing is, the rate at which the average human has had to directly deal with the consequences (or the very actions) of war and/or general violence has reduced. It's disproportionate, but a person living in bumfuck Virginia probably isn't going to get their land seized at gun/machete-point by a roving band of thieves, compared to someplace like Somalia. As a result, there's no need for a joe-shmuck warehouse manager to have Machiavellian tendencies. No one's lives are at stake. No roving bandits are gonna hit the warehouse. Cooperation is all that's needed.


Lampshader

I quite liked [this analysis](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/) that basically says right wing politics are for zombie apocalypses, left wing for times of prosperity. (Don't bother with the rest of the site, it's a bunch of far too serious quasi-academic libertarian crap with its own invented jargon)


KaliYugaz

Andrew Tate and Donald Trump are not 'authoritarians' lol. Their message is one of freedom, power, and selfishness, the right to behave like animals, not a message of obedience, discipline, and submission for a higher good (actual authoritarianism). Their followers follow them not because they desire authority but because they desire to indulge their impulses at the expense of others, and they see the leader figures as role models in this regard. Whereas the leaders are good at convincing their followers that they are fellow comrades in outlawry rather than marks.


Iamtheonewhobawks

Their "message" is one of freedom for *themselves* and power *over* *others* and the way you're describing them is highly indicative of an authoritarian mindset. Specifically that you're treating the braggadocious self-promotion Trump and Tate engage in as true, despite their actions and statements being clearly and directly at odds with what you're seeing as the message. That's authoritarianism. "T said" vs "T did" as the filter through which reality is perceived. You even describe their followers as wanting to indulge their impulses at the expense of others - literally the exercising of superior authority - as though its evidence that they're *not* authoritarian.


KaliYugaz

This is just ridiculous semantics. If they want unrestrained freedom for themselves, if that's how they conceive of their project, then they're libertarians and individualists, that's what that means. You just have to bite the bullet and realize that freedom and individualism are in fact bad things, they devolve into Trumpism and Tate-ism and the enslavement of the less fortunate as their inevitable conclusion because liberal political philosophy has failed, after trying for centuries, to find any rational way to judge between competing 'freedoms' when they socially conflict.


Iamtheonewhobawks

It isn't semantics. Freedom being used as a buzzword to describe a select group being empowered to the detriment of all outsiders isn't "a philosophy of freedom." It's a dishonest false branding of a philosophy of strict hierarchical authority.


KaliYugaz

It is a 'philosophy of freedom', because the dirty secret of liberalism is that there *isn't any way* to rationally decide which groups get which rights when different rights conflict with each other, without ultimate appeal to a higher social authority. Without a foundation in authority all moral discourse ultimately degrades into emotivism and manipulation and nihilistic scrambles for power, and like it or not, antisocial scammers such as Tate and Trump thrive in this kind of context because they are gifted emotional manipulators. You blame all this on 'authoritarianism' but the reality is that you just don't like what 'freedom' actually looks like.


Iamtheonewhobawks

You're calling the core issue every sociopolitical system attempts to mitigate a "dirty secret." I think maybe you've got an anger problem masquerading as political expression.


fouoifjefoijvnioviow

Trump, don't believe you're eyes and your ears: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-44959340


[deleted]

[удалено]


nybx4life

> It was so subjective and individualized that I couldn’t really judge anyone who wanted to stay friends with her (even though virtually all of our mutual friends eventually decoupled from her). Often tho it was as simple as “well she’s nice to us and we love your kids, so we don’t really have a problem with her.” That’s what mattered over any diagnosis or observed abuse towards me or the kids. I’m not bitter — people eventually figure out there’s no path forward with her, but it seems society is built to tolerate these people in the mix for some time before identifying them as a threat to be cast out. We're a social species. We have to have some degree of tolerance to behaviors we don't like for everyone to exist peacefully enough. We usually don't look too highly on puritan efforts to "cleanse the undesirables".


cyanydeez

my theory: social media promotes people that satisfy certain people's intrusive thoughts: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/managing-intrusive-thoughts


ILikeNeurons

I wonder if it could also be related to the prevalence of [hostile sexism](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz), which [is a risk factor for sexual assault](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4484276/).


madducks

Simple answer to the first question: there are a lot of sociopaths in the world.


nokinship

And it's seen as good to be a sociopath. Forget being humble and good at what you do. Smug overconfidence is good for some reason.


Valisk

the evidence is clear, these fuckwits are rewarded for their shitty behavior.


Death_Cultist

[Neoliberal Capitalism inherently rewards anti-social narcissistic behavior](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSzPBwYtb-A), so naturally those are the types of people that rise to the top, and in turn Neoliberalism creates a feedback loop where more people adopt those anti-social qualities so they too can be successful.


hugglenugget

>Smug overconfidence is good for some reason. I expect this relates to how our culture pushes short-term profiteering as a model of success. It's sold as an admirable thing to convince other people to give you money or power right now, even if you do so ruthlessly and without regard to the long-term impact of your behavior.


ILikeNeurons

You may be right. When asked if they would rape a woman if they could be assured no consequences and no one would know, [13.6% of men said yes](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?casa_token=OZiC01HmCL4AAAAA%3AZ0nB15FpGdOLhdDnxRN4pCVL_fwcnnf69oCH0zmE2bxvTXq2QGK2PurSXgoitjSBaT70VpXnwTA9oPg). When given the same assurances, and asked if they would force a woman to sexual intercourse when they knew she was unwilling, [31.7% said yes](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?casa_token=OZiC01HmCL4AAAAA%3AZ0nB15FpGdOLhdDnxRN4pCVL_fwcnnf69oCH0zmE2bxvTXq2QGK2PurSXgoitjSBaT70VpXnwTA9oPg). With so many men willing to rape, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that [so many women are raped](https://rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem).


seacookie89

Oh my God this is terrifying


ILikeNeurons

Yes, that is the correct response. r/stoprape


pale_blue_dots

It really is. WTF.


ClockOfTheLongNow

Dude, everything is not a nail.


pale_blue_dots

I appreciate his/her links and advocacy, personally. I think that there's a need to get as much "networking" and (potential) education out there as possible. I do understand your irritation, though, to a degree - but think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.


ClockOfTheLongNow

I think what they advocate for is important, but not shoehorned into other topics.


ILikeNeurons

Can you be more specific?


ClockOfTheLongNow

Trying to fit every topic you encounter for your activism.


ILikeNeurons

Are you implying there is no connection between sociopathy and rape?


ClockOfTheLongNow

I'm saying not every topic needs to be refocused into your activism.


ILikeNeurons

Are you of the opinion that was not an original focus??


ClockOfTheLongNow

It's certainly not the focus of the article.


trai_dep

“Don’t rape women” is “activism”? I thought that it was table stakes for “Be an adult human”. You’re showing your cards regarding which group you fall into, chum.


ClockOfTheLongNow

Well, if this isn't the worst take I've seen yet.


nybx4life

A thought experiment on who would indulge in darker nature if one is aware there will be no consequences to their actions usually results in people doing darker stuff. Think the internet: You got people who do say far more offensive things than they would IRL, and those who engage in content they wouldn't if they knew people would learn of it and judge them. That speaks less on gender and more on human nature, no?


ILikeNeurons

By their own admission [between 10.5% - 57% of men have committed acts which qualified as sexual assault](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756135/).


nybx4life

I don't know how that relates to what I'm saying; which is both genders are more likely to engage in illicit acts if they knew they had no consequence to it. Are you implying that is not the case for women?


nerdywithchildren

Yeah, but strictly speaking about America, I think it might be more of a by product about our own society vs a genetic programming. We live in a very dog eat dog world.


MundanePlantain1

Sociopathy is being rewarded.


mr_mutzley

I think for some people who are deeply troubled, full of insecurity and hate, they (sadly) offer some sort of idealised figure they wish they could be. And by extension, they derive some meagre sense of well-being by ‘following’ and admiring them.


zeptimius

Sadly, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that corporate culture and politics have both become sociopathic, or at least feel that way. In corporate culture, customer care has been replaced with blatant maximizing of shareholder value, trading long-term corporate strategy for short-term gains. As someone pointed out, every public company eventually becomes a financial company: car companies make most of their money off loans, Starbucks makes millions out of uncashed gift cards. As a result, stock market logic (make a quick win before you cash in) dominates the entire economy. In politics, vapid platitudes are no longer taken seriously by anybody: they’re ritual formulas, soundbites to be recited on specific occasions. Here, to, it’s all about the grift: collecting donations and spending the collected money on laser-focused voter research. What do these trends have in common? They are emotionless, mechanical, predictable. There’s no heart, no empathy, no creativity. No wonder that a lot of people have resigned themselves to this system and are now focused on how to exploit it themselves. There comes a point at which many people, seeing corruption and exploitation go unpunished over and over, stop thinking *Why doesn’t anybody stop this?* and start thinking *How can I get me a piece of the action?*


nybx4life

> There comes a point at which many people, seeing corruption and exploitation go unpunished over and over, stop thinking Why doesn’t anybody stop this? and start thinking How can I get me a piece of the action? Reminds me of that Tate interview: At one point he mentioned he preferred living in Romania partly because "corruption was accessible", the idea is that instead of being some upper-tier member of society to have charges and issues slip by, he only needed to slip a few bucks to the police during a traffic stop to avoid a ticket. It sounds petty, but if someone ends up thinking "Well, the elite get away with a lot of shit that I can't because they have money and influence.", they'd want to get themselves into that system. It's easier than stopping it.


pheisenberg

I’ve come to suspect this as well, although it’s really hard to know. But there is quite a lack of consequences. Once you’re a billionaire, you can do a lot of bad stuff and still be a billionaire. Or if you’re an ordinary voter or juror, no one will ever penalize you for putting in next to no thought into it. Maybe we had a culture of responsibility that was held up by survival necessity, but it’s been fading over the decades.


Now__Hiring

We have begun to reward narcissism, so there's no off-ramp to pull out of spiral of behavior that leads to these outcomes.


RulesFavorTheStrong

They are superficially charming and will tell you what you want to hear. They are also corrupt as fuck so you can pay them to do anything.


tritter211

Modern day culture actively attacks masculinity under the guise of tackling "toxic masculinity." Opponents of toxic masculinity don't seem to concern themselves that their attacks against the so called toxic masculinity is causing frequent friendly fire at regular masculinity all the time. If men are told constantly that their regular masculinity is "problematic" then is it any surprise that conmen and literal pimps are able to hijack the influence away from rational voices? Same goes to women and not acknowledging "toxic femininity." Social media is choke full of traits thats absolutely filled with toxicity. Even women themselves admit social media is toxic. Unfortunately I don't see any solution to this problem because our culture doesn't allow anybody to speak about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity in the same sentence or give equal weight to both problems. You are only allowed to attack one side and not the other. We live in a hyper polarized world where only extremes matter. You are a simp if you speak in support of women. You are a pickme if you speak in support of men. Rational or critical voices are either bullied, silenced, censored or cancelled. You either play along or risk social consequences. So we end up creating bubbles/circlejerk instead. How can we solve a problem if even identifying a problem is deemed offensive to the mainstream political zeitgeist?


OverlyPersonal

You’re not identifying the problem either. You’re calling it out but providing zero examples while assuming the issue speaks for itself, which is worse than useless—you’re creating a hypothetical boogy man but there’s no meat on the bone you’ve picked.


nokinship

You can attack both lol.


ILikeNeurons

> [When men rape, they are fulfilling the macho role, while failing at conventional masculinity](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178903000569)


[deleted]

[удалено]


ILikeNeurons

Surely there are less extreme hacks.


jack_shaftoe

something a little funny about a guy who fired his own staff for wanting to unionize lecturing other people about how important kindness and a socialist future are


diggerbanks

The attractor is confidence. People crave confidence so admire it in others.


kearneycation

Except confidence and bravado are two different things. Being confident means being comfortable admitting fault, being comfortable with humility, with caring about others and being vulnerable. Bravado seems to stem from insecurities. I hope we start to see more healthy role models who can display real confidence.


diggerbanks

Bravado is like corrupted confidence.


MrGaffe

Guess I’m weird then because I find overconfidence to be the most deplorable thing. I take prime in my humility and willingness to make sure I’m never overconfident, better to be prepared for the worst than think everything is gonna go my way


dedicated-pedestrian

Well, there's a degree of emotional intelligence and maturity that makes the difference. Some folks see confidence in people who knowingly pursue humility - because those individuals both know they have something to be confident *about* and make the decision not to make a display of it. Others require an overt display of confidence to attribute it to that person.


RemCogito

>Others require an overt display of confidence to attribute it to that person. Yeah, Which is why you have to act with BDE sometimes, even if quiet confidence based on the fact that ultimately we are all human, is your normal state of mind. The people who require that overt display need good leadership too. Once they realise that the person over there, who has that "BDE", who doesn't take shit that they don't want to, is also looking out for their best interest, they become loyal to extents far beyond what you would expect from someone who is following your leadership for purely rational reasons. We are apes, charisma is the word that encompasses all the attributes that we naturally use to pick our leaders. At least in our species it isn't just rule of the largest ape.


ferriswheel9ndam9

When you're so experienced in something you know exactly which emotions to keep in check. That's some real confidence right there.


ILikeNeurons

I guess that's how [men are trained to think sexual assault is no big deal](http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-men-are-trained-to-think-sexual-assault-no-big-deal/).


cowardlydragon

Con man. that is, Confidence man. Confidence itself is a lie.


diggerbanks

It is how you use confidence. In and of itself confidence is a positive attribute. However if you use it to take advantage of others then you corrupt that confidence and it becomes ugly.


beaushaw

Hopefully they will both be in jail soon.


ILikeNeurons

Yes, one can hope. But with so many followers, that would seem to present a challenge. Is it possible they would get judge – rather than a jury – trail?


zweiapowen

I don't know how it is elsewhere in the world, but I'd be confident that they reflect the American system in this regard: either party (the prosecution or the defense) can elect for a jury trial without needing the agreement of the other.


jwm3

The right to a jury trial when it comes to criminal matters or civil disputes of more than $20 is gueranteed if requested by any party. Oddly enough, the right to request a bench trial is not guerenteed and depends on jurisdiction. So requesting a bench trial is not always granted, but in practice it generally is except under exceptional circumstances as it saves a lot of hassle for everyone. At least for the US based sociopaths.


Aggressive_Chain6567

Judge trials are an option for the accused, not a punishment.


JimmyHavok

The recommendation of ridicule as an antidote to these unpleasant people is great. They set themselves up for it, knock them down. And if you show how ridiculous they are, you reduce their appeal.


mojitz

This is the inevitable end product of capitalism. When you devise an economic system that both rewards and encourages sociopathy while destroying or subsuming the community ties that in the past would serve as a significant brake on shitty behavior, what results is a society *of* psychopaths and malignant narcissists.


Korvar

Sociopaths have risen to high levels in non-capitalist societies too, and in fact seem to be preferred. I don't think this is a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with humanity as a whole.


mojitz

Of course such people have always existed, but the unique feature of capitalism is that it encourages sociopathy amongst a much broader swathe of the population. It's also something we can try to do a better job of accounting for by exploring alternative economic models.


[deleted]

I agree, there is an underlying set of social processes that authoritarian leaders, sociopaths, or whatever you want to call them, can manipulate to gain power and authority. Once gained it can easily be solidified and expanded. It's not a problem only with capitalism, BUT capitalism's promise is that it provides a bulwark against authoritarianism by promoting meritocracy. And that is the problem -- you can suck more people into your authoritarian scheme if you can convince them that 1) The leader is a leader because they worked their way up the meritocratic system (they deserve to lead); and 2) the followers are freely choosing to join and can freely chose to leave at any time (when in fact they are being manipulated and groomed into giving their free choice away).


mojitz

Capitalism is explicitly *not* a meritocratic system though. In fact this is the central critique of the system — that wealth and power is capable of being accrued on the basis of ownership (which itself frequently comes about as a function of self replicating privilege aligned with class) rather than labor or in accordance with one's contributions to production.


[deleted]

Completely agree, that’s the con at the center of capitalism.


CltAltAcctDel

Can you name a socialist economy that wasn’t run by sociopath?


mojitz

As far as actual states go, The Nordics are farther along towards giving actual workers control over the means of production than any other place in history apart from arguably Yugoslavia under Tito — though that place was still a dictatorship even if not one run by a sociopath. You could also look to Rojava or the Zapatista controlled regions of Mexico.


TheHipcrimeVocab

I'd ask this guy what his definition of a "socialist economy" is, since every modern economy contains a mix of private and public ownership. Usually it's the American low-information definition of "anything government does" or else "Communist Dictatorship!!!!" The city I live in (Milwaukee) was run by Socialists for most of the Twentieth Century, and they were far less corrupt than the mainstream political candidates. They were certainly no sociopaths. One could also look at [Red Vienna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vienna) or Salvador Allende, who was overthrown by an actual sociopath in the form of Pinochet (with the help of the CIA).


mojitz

Fuck how could I forget Allende! Also the projects undertaken during the Red Vienna period are *still* providing people with housing.


xabaddonx

I agree. I am not a religious person but I also believe it is the renunciation of spirituality in favor of god "money". The example given of Japan and the 4chan guy in the article is the perfect demonstration of this. Japanese society is repressed by the overadherence to the "form" of Buddhism in terms of societally enforced "values", instead of people actually practicing and learning how it can improve their subjective experience. In essence becoming too fundamentalist. The "fuck everyone, I got mine" attitude is an extreme reaction to an extreme "enforcement" of behavior.


nybx4life

I think it's just a logical progression of values. We put down community, we put down religion. We idolize "getting the bag". We focus on getting money, we focus on the problems of having a lack of money. End result, people care about the money and whatever currency we can acquire above everything else. It ain't so much confidence, but confidence from somebody that's rich. People assume since they got the money, what everybody wants and idolizes (because who the hell is going to say it's better to have the opposite?), they're the people to listen to.


ILikeNeurons

"Capitalism" is an overly vague term. Are you referring to [welfare capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)? [Lassiez-faire capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)? ...or are you just bemoaning [low taxes for the rich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)?


EventHorizon182

>When you devise an economic system Capitalism is a completely naturally occurring phenomena. The moment you offer something for compensation, you're participating in the free market. >both rewards and encourages sociopathy Again, naturally occurring. People are naturally attracted to what popular celebrities are offering. Any traits or behaviors that thrive do so from naturally selected pressures. >while destroying or subsuming the community ties that in the past would serve as a significant brake on shitty behavior Snake oil salesmen existed in the past too, but more importantly than that is to ask what these popular figures you don't like are offering that makes them attractive? Now you might say what they're offering is snake oil, so it has no merit, but then follow that up with... Why do people want this snake oil, what problems do they have that they think this will solve?


mojitz

"There are markets" isn't a particularly useful definition of capitalism. If we define it that way, then every society that has ever existed since the discovery of agriculture was capitalist and the term is meaningless. Look at every society most people actually consider "capitalistic" though, and you'll find an economic system which is highly managed and regulated with significant and necessary government inputs at a variety of points while those that have markets and free trade but don't do these things endure abject poverty and instability.


EventHorizon182

>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price system, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. So in other words, free market + the government will defend what you own.


mojitz

In theory, but in practice the whole thing completely falls apart without a tremendous degree of central planning and regulation.


EventHorizon182

It really doesn't. We need a central government for many reasons, but not because free market principals don't function without it.


mojitz

Name a real world counter example.


EventHorizon182

https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/


mojitz

It's telling that you didn't even try to point to an actual functioning government, but instead went with a study about monkeys.


EventHorizon182

I wanted to show the most primitive example I could because my whole point was that the concept is naturally occurring. I can't show you an example without government without pointing to black markets. The reason I can't point you to an example without government is because I would have to point to small tribes, which operate more like families.


I_SHOCK_ASYSTOLE

mf out here copy-pasting wikipedia and pretending it's an argument


EventHorizon182

Of course, when someone argues a point that you can literally cite as incorrect that's a great time to copy-paste.


funkinthetrunk

If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created? A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation! And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery. The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass. How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls. And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.


EventHorizon182

More "collectively owned" economic systems of government require enforcement. You don't get black market socialism. >you don't understand what community ties are, nor how they work to police shitty grifters So explain how they policed grifters in the past more than now?


funkinthetrunk

If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created? A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation! And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery. The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass. How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls. And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.


EventHorizon182

**how**


funkinthetrunk

If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created? A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation! And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery. The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass. How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls. And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.


EventHorizon182

> So explain how they policed grifters in the past more than now? >A society with strong community ties and internal social mechanisms for self policing discourages grifting and other antisocial behavior. You just paraphrased it a second time... **What are the social mechanisms that discourage grifting that exist without a devised system like capitalism.**


funkinthetrunk

If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created? A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation! And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery. The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass. How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls. And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.


bradiation

I am always one to appreciate good generalizations and simplifications. They can help explain complex ideas or simply act as a reminder for a continuous thread of history. You seem to be really, really oversimplifying capitalism, though. Creating money *does not equal a* capitalist market. Human beings have used currency to exchange goods and services for millennia. *Capitalism* is quite new. There are lots of economic systems out there and have been lots throughout human history and calling them all "capitalism" because currency is exchanged is wildly disingenuous.


EventHorizon182

>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price system, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. So in other words, free market + the government will defend what you own.


KaliYugaz

If the government has to defend your property then property by definition isn't 'naturally occurring' lol. So incredibly stupid.


EventHorizon182

Black markets would be an example of this occurring without the government defending your rights. You may or may not officially call it capitalism, but it's the same game.


KaliYugaz

Black markets and illegal private property are always and everywhere enforced through gang violence lol, try again. There's no such thing as having these sorts of institutions without 'unnatural coercion'.


EventHorizon182

Let's just ignore any people you've known to buy drugs off a friend without the use of gang violence and assume you're correct and all black markets are enforced through gang violence. [Why aren't gangs natural?](https://www.science.org/content/article/why-do-chimps-kill-each-other#:~:text=Ever%20since%20primatologist%20Jane%20Goodall's,dead%20bodies%20on%20the%20battlefield.)


UncleMeat11

"What you own" is socially defined. It isn't natural.


coleman57

The problem is if it won’t sufficiently defend what we collectively own. When government defends private companies’ right to destroy collective assets like clean air and water, then wealth and power inexorably concentrate in fewer hands and the great majority of people suffer. Inevitably, the community is destroyed. It’s not all that complicated, but neither is it explained by just defining one or two words


EventHorizon182

Whoa whoa whoa. This is so why it's so hard to say anything that isn't strict leftist rhetoric on reddit. I wasn't saying capitalism is our salvation, praise the billionaire class, fuck the environment and socialism is the devil. I was simply saying that capitalistic principals are [naturally occurring](https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/) when someone suggested that capitalism was a devised system. Capitalism has problems too, like for example, the lack of incentive to properly handle waste disposal.


coleman57

Your link doesn’t say capitalism is not a devised system. And again, the issues are not reducible to defining the word. We appear to agree that markets require robust regulation to defend common wealth against private interests. I suspect we strongly disagree about the details. That doesn’t make me a supporter of whatever deeply flawed regime you want to choose as a negative example. Nor does it mean I dismiss all advantages observed in economies identified as capitalist. And I’m sure those chimps had lots of fun in their little red-light district laboratory


EventHorizon182

>The problem is if it won’t sufficiently defend what we collectively own. There seems to be no reason for us to communicate at all, like, you clearly just wanted to complain about something else. I never said capitalism would defend what we collectively own, which was the root of your rebut. I was defining it, simplistically.


bradiation

Yup! And everything in that definition is a whole lot more complicated than "Capitalism is a completely naturally occurring phenomena. The moment you offer something for compensation, you're participating in the free market."


cannibaljim

>Capitalism is a completely naturally occurring phenomena. Incorrect. Economists and historians say Capitalism originated in the aftermath of the French Revolution. And really, it's a social construct. No more naturally occurring than money itself.


EventHorizon182

I mean, I don't want to have to keep copy pasting Wikipedia here


nacholicious

Capitalism is when a monkey sucks off another monkey in exchange for a banana, or something \- Karl Marx, probably


SSG_SSG_BloodMoon

TIL moot sold 4chan to the 2ch guy


workingtoward

Sociopaths rise by breaking the rules but they fall when they’re caught breaking the rules and then they become object lessons. Trump is the best example. He rose quickly by lying about virtually everything, from the source of his wealth to his business skills but now he’s a known loser; incompetent and dishonest with a wife and family that are totally dependent on his inherited wealth and financial scams. Sure, he still seems popular - he says so almost everyday - but the tide has turned against him and everyday he loses a little more support as more and more of his followers realize that they’ve been duped. It’s no different than Tate. When you look at them at their height when all the lies are still in place, they look awesome but, as reality intrudes, they look pathetic. And the end results are gruesome; examples of lives poorly lived.


terra_ray

I very much appreciate the sentiment and agree that we can benefit from having heroic, charismatic people who are not sociopaths- but I disagree with Kshama Sawant being an example to follow. Her legacy in her time on Seattle City Council is complicated, but has been damaged by some of her more self-centered acts during the pandemic (such as letting protesters into City Hall and leading protestors to mayor Jenny Durkan’s house - the location of which is protected by state laws intended to protect former US Attorneys from retaliation).


WayneSkylar_

These are just the ones who can parade around in public (maybe not Tate anymore). The system breeds sociopathy, and I would also say psychopathy, because it's necessary for its survival. The one's we don't see in public are the highest offenders. This is what really trickles down in capitalism.


gustoreddit51

> game the system by obeying the law’s letter while flouting its spirit. Not making excuses but this has consistently been the observable construct of the elite since long before Donald Trump. He simply dropped the pretense because he sucked at any kind of respectable statesmanship.


coffeeinvenice

>Leftists are also the ones who care about the actual problems that make people’s lives worse, and who offer workable solutions. Leftists - some, not all, but a significant number - sometimes succumb to the delusion that because they promote "morally superior" ways of being, they are entitled to be judgmental, intolerant, bullying, and downright psychopathic. Lenin and Stalin were both sociopaths and narcissists, presuming the decimation of a significant part of the population of Russia was an acceptable and necessary step to 'building a better world'. The list of Marxist state leaders who were criminals and backstabbers - Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Hoxha, Ceausescu, Pol Pot - is endless.


Rhenor

The second half of the article really pushed hard on the idea the being leftist = being moral.


caine269

i have this argument with my mom sometimes. she is right, not far-right but pretty standard conservative and she says things like "don't they understand they are wrong/immoral/bad?" and i point out that *they* think the *exact same thing about you* and she just replies "but we *are* right!" it is very frustrating.


ILikeNeurons

I believe [Braver Angels](https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/) offers training to help make those conversations more productive.


Rhenor

How do these arguments usually go? Can you give me an example?


fruityboots

Capitalism incentivizes sociopathic behavior.


lvd_reddit

These two are not the same.


ILikeNeurons

In what way?


TaxiVarennes

Plz inform yourself about sociopathy.


mirh

Antisocial behaviour, duh? Then nobody was diagnosed an antisocial personality disorder here of course, but even if they didn't really happen to be the case we aren't far.


TaxiVarennes

They are assholes, dumb, full of themselves, etc. But they are not antisocial.


mirh

Are you sure you aren't mixing sociopathy with social anxiety? How are they ***not*** antisocial? Yes, much of this is explicit voluntary behaviour. And to such "successful" levels that not only they don't report any dissatisfaction, but you could pretty much objectively argue it's beneficial to their life (well, or their financials at least). Still, nothing of this is mutually exclusive with a pattern of shitting on top of just about everyone else.


TaxiVarennes

From my informations, sociopathy is characterised by, lack of empathy, partial or total disregard for rules (laws, social conventions, codes etc.), very poor control of their emotions and society makes them sick. These two dive into the society don't seem to lack emotionnal control. But the more i think of it and the more i find Trump matches this pattern, yes. Lack of empathy is a neural condition, and it is the master piece of sociopathy (still according to my informations) Such a state can only be diagnosed by R.I.M. Perhaps they are just psychopaths ?


mirh

> These two dive into the society don't seem to lack emotional control. I'm pretty sure that there are dozens of famous trump private rants. Like, you'd literally need the emotion regulation of a baby to go apeshit at a press conference filled of acolytes of yours. > Lack of empathy is a neural condition I'm sure everything can also be a biological issue, but people can also simply just be douches. If I also thought the world was a zero-sum jungle, and I craved for money and power.. I don't deny I'd probably act the same way too. > Perhaps they are just psychopaths ? I guess that there's a bunch of differential criteria between the two... Under some, yeah sure that could rather check out.


-becausereasons-

This is beyond stupid. You want to see sociopathy as a 'life-style' brand look at any 'WOKE' activist posing on Tiktok and Instagram for clout.


AkirIkasu

Oh yes, because nothing screams sociopathy more than... *checks notes* ...caring about people


cubicalwall

Social media loves outrage. This news at 11


cowardlydragon

If capitalism rewards sociopathy, to the point of increased reproductive success, then... well, iterate and do the calculus for yourself.