An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."(reddit.com)
reddit.com
An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6cwfo/middle_school_student_newspaper_runs_survey/c03iohu
16 comments
Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation.
I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable.
But defn, I didn't find them surprising.
I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable.
But defn, I didn't find them surprising.
Maybe not outright falshoods - but possibly a product of over zealous cynicism.
For example:
"Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy"
Could just as easily be attributed (nowadays) to social pressure: e.g. it is a well known in pop culture that fathers are suspicious of their daughters boyfriends and so some of them are. :)
(and yeh I realise it is somewhat ironic to be disagreeing with a list of "things that cant be said" :))
For example:
"Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy"
Could just as easily be attributed (nowadays) to social pressure: e.g. it is a well known in pop culture that fathers are suspicious of their daughters boyfriends and so some of them are. :)
(and yeh I realise it is somewhat ironic to be disagreeing with a list of "things that cant be said" :))
Both you and the Reddit poster are overlooking the obvious evolutionary explanation. To a father, a daughter's eggs are a precious reproductive resource. A daughter who squanders her reproductive potential on lower-status mates is diminishing her father's genetic legacy. (This doesn't hold for sons, because they have a virtually unlimited reproductive capacity.)
I was just using a random example to highlight the idea he is probably wrong in portraying that as an accurate assessment.
Now we have 3 ideas - I'm inclined to agree yours has a lot of bearing.
Now we have 3 ideas - I'm inclined to agree yours has a lot of bearing.
[deleted]
> There is no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a soul. We are machines made out of meat. All we are is snuffed out the instant the brain dies.
The soul is specifically metaphysical. Claiming it doesn't exists because there isn't physical evidence is missing the point in a very stupid way.
> There is no substantive difference between humans and other animals. We might possess more of certain things, like intelligence, but there is not one thing we have that they do not, not one thing we do that they do not.
For carefully selected definitions of what's substantive, sure. Also, PETA and WSPA would be a fraction of their size if it was actually true that you can't say that.
> People only behave prosocially out of fear. Remove threats of retribution, and they become as selfish as they can get away with.
Prosocially vs. selfish aren't opposites, so the statement is shaky. Also, that's a core tenet of big-government advocates, and last I checked, they're alive and kicking, so it's hardly a taboo.
> The public education system is a day-care center. It exists not to teach, but to free up both parents to work.
Not true. That may be the current state of the system, and according to free market advocates, it's the only state a public school system can have, but it's not its purpose.
> Our economic system is set up to reward those who invest at the expense of those who work. This is because it is controlled by the former. Our entire culture is designed around ways of making people work all their lives to create as much value as possible, then give that value to someone else without protest.
It was maybe partly true when Marx wrote it 150 years ago, but certainly isn't any more. People choose regular jobs over entrepreneurship because jobs are much easier and safer, not because the investing classes are holding them down.
> Yes, we have masters. They own the houses we live in, the companies that make everything we use, the jobs that employ us and provide us with the means to live, every single source we get information to make decisions from. They are a small class of people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. No, it's not a conspiracy. They didn't need to agree on it. They just all acted in their own best interest, and it happened. No, you will never join this class of people. The odds are astronomical against it.
Related to the above. No, you might not join the class of masters, but you can certainly become your own master. But it's hard and it doesn't come with a 9-5 and a monthly paycheck.
---
Also, none of the points are particularly disturbing. They might ruin the mood at carefully selected dinner parties, but that's hardly difficult.
The soul is specifically metaphysical. Claiming it doesn't exists because there isn't physical evidence is missing the point in a very stupid way.
> There is no substantive difference between humans and other animals. We might possess more of certain things, like intelligence, but there is not one thing we have that they do not, not one thing we do that they do not.
For carefully selected definitions of what's substantive, sure. Also, PETA and WSPA would be a fraction of their size if it was actually true that you can't say that.
> People only behave prosocially out of fear. Remove threats of retribution, and they become as selfish as they can get away with.
Prosocially vs. selfish aren't opposites, so the statement is shaky. Also, that's a core tenet of big-government advocates, and last I checked, they're alive and kicking, so it's hardly a taboo.
> The public education system is a day-care center. It exists not to teach, but to free up both parents to work.
Not true. That may be the current state of the system, and according to free market advocates, it's the only state a public school system can have, but it's not its purpose.
> Our economic system is set up to reward those who invest at the expense of those who work. This is because it is controlled by the former. Our entire culture is designed around ways of making people work all their lives to create as much value as possible, then give that value to someone else without protest.
It was maybe partly true when Marx wrote it 150 years ago, but certainly isn't any more. People choose regular jobs over entrepreneurship because jobs are much easier and safer, not because the investing classes are holding them down.
> Yes, we have masters. They own the houses we live in, the companies that make everything we use, the jobs that employ us and provide us with the means to live, every single source we get information to make decisions from. They are a small class of people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. No, it's not a conspiracy. They didn't need to agree on it. They just all acted in their own best interest, and it happened. No, you will never join this class of people. The odds are astronomical against it.
Related to the above. No, you might not join the class of masters, but you can certainly become your own master. But it's hard and it doesn't come with a 9-5 and a monthly paycheck.
---
Also, none of the points are particularly disturbing. They might ruin the mood at carefully selected dinner parties, but that's hardly difficult.
Well, let's see...
#5 - there is definitely an evolved moral compass. See "Game Theory and the Social Contract".
Pretty much all of the economics-related ones show a lack of understanding of modern economics. There's more to the failure of communism than that the leaders were power-hungry. And many economists would object to the statement that "workers" are being taken advantage of. It's certainly not true that the "lower rungs of the ladder" are inescapable.
#11 might be true, but it's not clear. Because at least some of our evolution occurred in a social setting, it may be that imposed abstinence for those just out of puberty does have some use. Maybe not, but it's certainly not clear either way. Similarly, #15 could have some evolutionary basis: consider that the dad wants his potential grandchildren to have the best chance at survival.
#16 is false, and certainly shows an immature viewpoint. At the very least, the writer is doing a bad job of differentiating between types of love, but I think it goes much more wrong than that.
#19 (biological destiny) is mostly true, but not entirely.
#18, about women's talent for symbol manipulation, is false as stated: on average men and women are about the same. However, men have a greater standard deviation, meaning that more men are at the high (and low) ends of the spectrum.
#5 - there is definitely an evolved moral compass. See "Game Theory and the Social Contract".
Pretty much all of the economics-related ones show a lack of understanding of modern economics. There's more to the failure of communism than that the leaders were power-hungry. And many economists would object to the statement that "workers" are being taken advantage of. It's certainly not true that the "lower rungs of the ladder" are inescapable.
#11 might be true, but it's not clear. Because at least some of our evolution occurred in a social setting, it may be that imposed abstinence for those just out of puberty does have some use. Maybe not, but it's certainly not clear either way. Similarly, #15 could have some evolutionary basis: consider that the dad wants his potential grandchildren to have the best chance at survival.
#16 is false, and certainly shows an immature viewpoint. At the very least, the writer is doing a bad job of differentiating between types of love, but I think it goes much more wrong than that.
#19 (biological destiny) is mostly true, but not entirely.
#18, about women's talent for symbol manipulation, is false as stated: on average men and women are about the same. However, men have a greater standard deviation, meaning that more men are at the high (and low) ends of the spectrum.
These are false:
- Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation.
- Humans are not completely selfish. I'm not buying the Ayn Rand philosophy that everything ultimately has a selfish foundation. In times of crisis people act irrationally against their own self interest to help others.
- We don't have masters. It's not that difficult to chose a route through life where you earn your money independently. If you put your life on auto-pilot you do end up working for a boss (not a bi-implication), and for most people that's a pretty good deal.
- We don't have a lot of control over our behavior, but we can train our self control. Routine is an extraordinarily powerful force. With routine you can overcome some of your natural flaws.
- Many parents care more about their children than their careers. Witness parents quitting their job and selling their house to pay for the kids medical expenses. Most parents simply want to have both a family and a career, but this doesn't mean the career is the #1 priority.
- Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation.
- Humans are not completely selfish. I'm not buying the Ayn Rand philosophy that everything ultimately has a selfish foundation. In times of crisis people act irrationally against their own self interest to help others.
- We don't have masters. It's not that difficult to chose a route through life where you earn your money independently. If you put your life on auto-pilot you do end up working for a boss (not a bi-implication), and for most people that's a pretty good deal.
- We don't have a lot of control over our behavior, but we can train our self control. Routine is an extraordinarily powerful force. With routine you can overcome some of your natural flaws.
- Many parents care more about their children than their careers. Witness parents quitting their job and selling their house to pay for the kids medical expenses. Most parents simply want to have both a family and a career, but this doesn't mean the career is the #1 priority.
Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation.
The majority of jobs required to provide the support (aka mostly manual labor) does not require a particularly high level of learning.
I don't necessarily agree with the original statement but I think that is just as flawed.
Perhaps a better idea is that the current school system is designed to pen in kids during the day so parents can get stuff done (yep, that's paraphrased from a pg essay btw before anyone calls me on it :)) with the idea they will learn something in the process?
In terms of your last point I dont think that's as good a rebuttal either because they are edge cases - where other factors (such as percieved moral requirements) force the issue. Consider it on a more day to day basis and it is quite possible (were you shipped off to a child minder due to parents jobs/careers etc? I know I was).
I disagree with the original point (again) but I think the real reason it is wrong is because putting a career before your children's immediate interest is not necessarily a case of caring less about them - because there could be longer term reasoning.
The majority of jobs required to provide the support (aka mostly manual labor) does not require a particularly high level of learning.
I don't necessarily agree with the original statement but I think that is just as flawed.
Perhaps a better idea is that the current school system is designed to pen in kids during the day so parents can get stuff done (yep, that's paraphrased from a pg essay btw before anyone calls me on it :)) with the idea they will learn something in the process?
In terms of your last point I dont think that's as good a rebuttal either because they are edge cases - where other factors (such as percieved moral requirements) force the issue. Consider it on a more day to day basis and it is quite possible (were you shipped off to a child minder due to parents jobs/careers etc? I know I was).
I disagree with the original point (again) but I think the real reason it is wrong is because putting a career before your children's immediate interest is not necessarily a case of caring less about them - because there could be longer term reasoning.
"There is no such thing as altruism. Everyone is ultimately only interested in their own pleasure. Even those who appear altruistic are doing so because it makes them feel good. No one actually cares about anyone else."
Caring is an emotion. Desiring good for someone else is an emotion. How do you know if you are feeling altruistic feelings? You feel them. Anyone who tells me that I don't feel something that I do is mistaken.
There is an argument that the author probably meant to make, but didn't, that my altruism probably evolved as a way to increase my gene's likelihood of survival. That would have been a more interesting point. But even so, saying that evolution makes my actions non-altruistic is like telling me that I'm not really in love because love is just a way of passing on genes. Love may have evolved to help me pass on my genes, but that doesn't mean that what I'm feeling isn't love. Altruism may have the consequence of helping my tribe and my offspring survive, but that doesn't mean it isn't altruism.
Caring is an emotion. Desiring good for someone else is an emotion. How do you know if you are feeling altruistic feelings? You feel them. Anyone who tells me that I don't feel something that I do is mistaken.
There is an argument that the author probably meant to make, but didn't, that my altruism probably evolved as a way to increase my gene's likelihood of survival. That would have been a more interesting point. But even so, saying that evolution makes my actions non-altruistic is like telling me that I'm not really in love because love is just a way of passing on genes. Love may have evolved to help me pass on my genes, but that doesn't mean that what I'm feeling isn't love. Altruism may have the consequence of helping my tribe and my offspring survive, but that doesn't mean it isn't altruism.
> Biology is destiny, no matter what your dreams are. Short people will never play in the NBA no matter how hard they practice. Dumb people will never get smarter by studying. Ugly ducklings grow up into freaky-looking ducks, not swans.
You'd have to make quite a stretch to say "never" for all of these. Short people do play in the NBA: Nate Robinson, Muggsy Bogues, and Ty Lawson come to mind. Try proving that "dumbness" is determined at birth by biology. And ugly ducklings growing up into freaky-looking ducks is a generalization, not a rule. Sure, there are some features people inherit that make them beautiful, but as one grows up there is a lot one can do to even the playing field (e.g., exercise, dress better, even plastic surgery)
You'd have to make quite a stretch to say "never" for all of these. Short people do play in the NBA: Nate Robinson, Muggsy Bogues, and Ty Lawson come to mind. Try proving that "dumbness" is determined at birth by biology. And ugly ducklings growing up into freaky-looking ducks is a generalization, not a rule. Sure, there are some features people inherit that make them beautiful, but as one grows up there is a lot one can do to even the playing field (e.g., exercise, dress better, even plastic surgery)
Pretty much all of the ones that start with everyone behaves a certain way for a certain reason.
>>There is no such thing as altruism. Just because the author has no sympathy doesn't mean everyone has no sympathy.
>>Humans are adults at puberty. Humans are not physically adults at puberty. Brain development isn't complete until around 20.
>>People, being adults at puberty, are ready to have sex at puberty. Depending on your definition of "ready" this one is not true. Capable yes. Ready for all of the consequences resulting from no.
>>Most of someone's personality is formed during their first four years of life. If they are abused or neglected during this time, they are fucked up permanently, and there is nothing anyone can do to help them.
The psychology papers I have read that state this belief say six, but that is neither here nor there. Traumatic events at any age leave permanent marks on people, see PTSD. Abuse at seven is just as bad psychologically as abuse at four.
>>Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy. Again author lacks human emotions, just sad really.
>>Love is not eternal. Attend an 80 year old person's funeral and talk to the surviving spouse. Infatuation may not last beyond 3 years, but that isn't what I define as Love.
>>Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers Maybe his parents but not everyone's.
>>There is no such thing as altruism. Just because the author has no sympathy doesn't mean everyone has no sympathy.
>>Humans are adults at puberty. Humans are not physically adults at puberty. Brain development isn't complete until around 20.
>>People, being adults at puberty, are ready to have sex at puberty. Depending on your definition of "ready" this one is not true. Capable yes. Ready for all of the consequences resulting from no.
>>Most of someone's personality is formed during their first four years of life. If they are abused or neglected during this time, they are fucked up permanently, and there is nothing anyone can do to help them.
The psychology papers I have read that state this belief say six, but that is neither here nor there. Traumatic events at any age leave permanent marks on people, see PTSD. Abuse at seven is just as bad psychologically as abuse at four.
>>Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy. Again author lacks human emotions, just sad really.
>>Love is not eternal. Attend an 80 year old person's funeral and talk to the surviving spouse. Infatuation may not last beyond 3 years, but that isn't what I define as Love.
>>Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers Maybe his parents but not everyone's.
This topic reminds me of an ex-girlfriend who had a knack for saying what I deemed inappropriate things. I recall getting upset with her when said something like #4 (below) among others. For example driving through an apartment area I used to live at which had slipped down economically after the dot-com bubble burst she said "You know you are in a bad neighborhood when there are a lot of black people" ... talking about a newborn cousin "he has a big nose, like a black person" ... and some other non-racist sounding stuff that I can't remember. Even when stuff she said was statistically true or had some basis in fact she just stated it in the most matter of fact and cynical way possible that really upset me.
"4. There is no such thing as altruism. Everyone is ultimately only interested in their own pleasure. Even those who appear altruistic are doing so because it makes them feel good. No one actually cares about anyone else."
"4. There is no such thing as altruism. Everyone is ultimately only interested in their own pleasure. Even those who appear altruistic are doing so because it makes them feel good. No one actually cares about anyone else."
Maybe the source of altruism is selfishness, but altruism exists anyway.
Not a surprising list. I agree with some points, and disagree with others. But this:
"6. People believe what they want to believe. Any evidence they possess is an excuse, not a reason."
Seems to pose a bit of self-referential paradox...
"6. People believe what they want to believe. Any evidence they possess is an excuse, not a reason."
Seems to pose a bit of self-referential paradox...
I didn't think it was surprising as well, but I don't know if it's because I'm older and have seen more of the world and the sort of people in it, but I know I would have been surprised at some of them as a college student, such as public schools didn't exist to teach, but as a daycare center so parents can work.
I say (and believe) things from that list every day. I find it funny to provoke people and test how much they can accept.
You can guess how popular I am with friends and at parties.
Consequently, my list of things we can't say would be very different. I guess each of us has his own limits and his own taboos.
You can guess how popular I am with friends and at parties.
Consequently, my list of things we can't say would be very different. I guess each of us has his own limits and his own taboos.
I think you are taking "can't" too literally.
I think the original sense of "can't" from pg's essay meant "things you can't say and remain in good social standing with the broader society." You are choosing to reduce your social standing on purpose by uttering these remarks.
I think the original sense of "can't" from pg's essay meant "things you can't say and remain in good social standing with the broader society." You are choosing to reduce your social standing on purpose by uttering these remarks.
#27. There will always be people who think they are Right and anyone who disagrees with them is Wrong. These people will espouse their views through Religion, Politics, Lists of "What you can't say", etc...
Maybe stuff you can't say (and definitly should be able to say, no doubt about that), but not stuff that is (obviously) true.
I have a hard time believing that there is empirical verification for all of the things on the list. (Considering the ability of the social sciences, I would claim that - at least today - finding out whether much of what is on the list is true, is pretty much impossible. Not forever or even in principle impossible, just as things stand today impossible.)
I have a hard time believing that there is empirical verification for all of the things on the list. (Considering the ability of the social sciences, I would claim that - at least today - finding out whether much of what is on the list is true, is pretty much impossible. Not forever or even in principle impossible, just as things stand today impossible.)
I find most of these things true by default. But I also find them things that we are obligated to strive to overcome.
And I can't find a way to express this idea of overcoming human frailty and human nature, without referencing something very much like a soul, or a spiritual reality.
If we are just meat machines, we are just going to do what we are going to do, and the rest is just philosophizing. I find myself unable to accept that, and I guess that's why I'm religious.
To be specific, Jesus talked about most of these things as being the default human condition, and said there was absolutely no way to overcome them from within the human condition. The ability to transcend default human behavior is necessarily spiritual, almost by definition.
So, I find myself mostly in agreement with this list, but my disagreement with the first item puts the rest in a different context. Human nature is immutable, unless we consider something outside the system, which I and many others refer to as "spiritual."
And I can't find a way to express this idea of overcoming human frailty and human nature, without referencing something very much like a soul, or a spiritual reality.
If we are just meat machines, we are just going to do what we are going to do, and the rest is just philosophizing. I find myself unable to accept that, and I guess that's why I'm religious.
To be specific, Jesus talked about most of these things as being the default human condition, and said there was absolutely no way to overcome them from within the human condition. The ability to transcend default human behavior is necessarily spiritual, almost by definition.
So, I find myself mostly in agreement with this list, but my disagreement with the first item puts the rest in a different context. Human nature is immutable, unless we consider something outside the system, which I and many others refer to as "spiritual."
On of my favourite ex-girlfriends once said the following to me:
I have great difficulty with this whole idea of the soul. I mean it seems to simply be a way for individuals to secure themselves a much larger place in the universe than we deserve. When you think of the grand scale of things we are less consequential than a single atom is compared to the entire earth. Seeing as we cant even truly visualize that analogy the whole truth scares the crap out of us; hence the idea of a soul.
(I post that w/o wanting to derail into an argument/discussion. It always struck me as an insightful analysis of the possibilities - hence worth sharing)
I have great difficulty with this whole idea of the soul. I mean it seems to simply be a way for individuals to secure themselves a much larger place in the universe than we deserve. When you think of the grand scale of things we are less consequential than a single atom is compared to the entire earth. Seeing as we cant even truly visualize that analogy the whole truth scares the crap out of us; hence the idea of a soul.
(I post that w/o wanting to derail into an argument/discussion. It always struck me as an insightful analysis of the possibilities - hence worth sharing)
[deleted]
Tell me again why we're listening to this guy?
In order to discuss whether these are things that are not socially acceptable to even utter, regardless of their empirical merits. I think the point is not whether these things are true or false necessarily, but whether even discussing them are socially permissible.
At least, that's what I took to be the intent behind the title of the submission.
At least, that's what I took to be the intent behind the title of the submission.
We are not (hopefully). But I would support the making of such lists in general, if only to encourage discussion.
Tell me again why we shouldn't?
Because most of the content is insultingly inane. I don't need some single guy with no kids telling me about how
Love is not eternal. It is a simple state of endorphin chemistry. It serves a single evolutionary purpose. It lasts about three years.
Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy.
Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers, their socioeconomic status, and what the Joneses think. That's why we have public schools instead of home education by one parent who doesn't have a "career".
Love is not eternal. It is a simple state of endorphin chemistry. It serves a single evolutionary purpose. It lasts about three years.
Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy.
Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers, their socioeconomic status, and what the Joneses think. That's why we have public schools instead of home education by one parent who doesn't have a "career".
1. Just because a mental state like love has a known chemical or evolutionary basis doesn't make it any less real.
2. I say the father is concerned about his daughter's mate selection because she carries his genes. She is a proxy for his reproductive success. He wants her to choose a good mate (e.g. someone who's more likely to stick around to care for the children) so his genes are more likely to survive.
3. No comment here, but I think it underestimates the effects of social proof in a parent's decision.
2. I say the father is concerned about his daughter's mate selection because she carries his genes. She is a proxy for his reproductive success. He wants her to choose a good mate (e.g. someone who's more likely to stick around to care for the children) so his genes are more likely to survive.
3. No comment here, but I think it underestimates the effects of social proof in a parent's decision.
1. My primary target of ridicule on this one was the apparently arbitrary cutoff of "three years."
2. I'm not a parent, but what you just described is not at all what normal people would mean when using the words "sexual jealousy."
3. I personally think it speaks to a pretty unbelievable sense of privilege; there are a hell of a lot of jobs that don't support a reasonable standard of living for a family of four on one income.
2. I'm not a parent, but what you just described is not at all what normal people would mean when using the words "sexual jealousy."
3. I personally think it speaks to a pretty unbelievable sense of privilege; there are a hell of a lot of jobs that don't support a reasonable standard of living for a family of four on one income.
Regarding #2, that's exactly my point: the father's behaviour can be explained completely without resorting to a sort of reverse Oedipus complex.
The point of such lists is not to be accurate. We accept that society is 90% right, so 90% of such lists will be either wrong or not even wrong. The point is to be aware that of the 10% we can miss if we stick to the conventional wisdom.
As for your examples, the first may be inane, but the second is at least taboo and the third actually has some truth in it, and is also more or less taboo.
As for your examples, the first may be inane, but the second is at least taboo and the third actually has some truth in it, and is also more or less taboo.
Add to that:
"No one actually cares about anyone else."
Seriously?
"No one actually cares about anyone else."
Seriously?
I think the list's only purpose is to attack that way of dismissive, unconstructive thinking.
The only reason I phrased my comment as a dismissive ad hominem was because this guy is a troll. A couple dozen intentionally offensive opinions presented as fact do not make incisive social commentary, and presenting them with no further citation or defense is not a sincere presentation. I have no interest in sitting here and making some point-by-point rebuttal to the first 27 insulting things that came off the top of some guy's head.
[deleted]
The list has the air of, 'you're an idiot if you disagree.' I suspect the punishment that the author perceives from society has more to do with over confidence of the delivery than the content itself.
Not to say I agree with all (or even most) of those statements. All of them are highly debatable. Even the ones I agree with are not clear cut. I think that's why I do find myself upset on reading the list. I find it particularly infuriating when very complicated matters are cut down into terse one liners as though no more thought is needed.
Not to say I agree with all (or even most) of those statements. All of them are highly debatable. Even the ones I agree with are not clear cut. I think that's why I do find myself upset on reading the list. I find it particularly infuriating when very complicated matters are cut down into terse one liners as though no more thought is needed.
I wonder--how much of what you can't say is necessarily all that cynical? I think there might be a lot of things you can't say which are actually positive and uplifting, but only incite outrage because they question the way most people live their lives or the restrictions they place upon themselves.
15, 18, 21, 22, 23, and maybe 27 are the only items on the list which will actually shock people, and 18 and 22 will only shock liberal people. I can think of a lot of claims that are more shocking.
15, 18, 21, 22, 23, and maybe 27 are the only items on the list which will actually shock people, and 18 and 22 will only shock liberal people. I can think of a lot of claims that are more shocking.
"They must be something that society will punish you for saying...in any degree from social disapproval..."
Social disapproval? What a ridiculously low bar. We might be better off trying to come up with a short-list of plausible claims that don't cause a significant number of people, somewhere in one's society, to disapprove of anyone making them.
Social disapproval? What a ridiculously low bar. We might be better off trying to come up with a short-list of plausible claims that don't cause a significant number of people, somewhere in one's society, to disapprove of anyone making them.
Honestly, I could tell most of the things in that list to pretty much anyone I know without shocking them. Including my grandma.
"Communism would never work" ? Gee, I think there are actually more people in the western world who would actually be shocked if they were told otherwise!
"Communism would never work" ? Gee, I think there are actually more people in the western world who would actually be shocked if they were told otherwise!
I think you missed the point of that one
"Communism would never work, because no one with power is ever willing to share it. However, the reason we were taught to hate it was because it was a threat to our masters."
"Communism would never work, because no one with power is ever willing to share it. However, the reason we were taught to hate it was because it was a threat to our masters."
All items on this list can be summed up to : We always act out of self-preservation.
Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.